Copyright 2002, Roadracing World Publishing, Inc.

I would like to add my opinion on this subject, let them be legal, what is the difference it is just one less thing the factories will have an advantage with. If it were up to me I would make Data Acquisition legal also. It would save me time and money in getting my bikes set up properly.

Hey, the AMA is supposed to be the top level of racing here in the U.S., there are plenty of race organizations and schools and track day events to ride your bikes at. If you can’t afford the top level, stay home or run the event when it comes to your area to see if you can be competitive but please quit the whining.

The problem in America today is all the political correctness, at my kid’s school they make everyone a winner, that’s BS, we live in a competitive world, find your level and be happy with it.

Being competitive in the AMA is not an entitlement.

Jim Rashid
4&6 Racing
Chicago, Illinois

Copyright 2002, Roadracing World Publishing, Inc.

By Beth Wyse

Jack and Vickie Abbott have been announced as the new managers of Barber Motorsports Park, the much-anticipated new road course in Birmingham, Alabama.

The couple first teamed up to manage Roebling Road Raceway near Savannah, Georgia. Prior to that, Jack had gotten a taste of racing when he worked with Colonial Motorsports Group to stage an Indy Lights race on a temporary road course in Savannah.

The Abbotts moved from Roebling to Virginia International Raceway several years ago. The opportunity for them to manage Barber was too compelling to turn down.

“Well obviously, after seeing the facility, it’s second to none,” explained Vickie. “Although Jack and I have a love for car racing, we really have a love for motorcycle racing and we knew it would be the motorcycle track in the U.S.

“We feel so blessed to be given the opportunity. I keep hearing that this track is going to set the standard for all the other road courses and I believe it. We’re real happy to be here and excited to get everybody out here.”

The only major event that has been confirmed for the 2003 season is the Grand-American Rolex Series, which features sports cars. “There are still discussions currently about a 2003 AMA date, as well as a full schedule of club racing,” said Vickie. “We hope to see WERA and SCCA and various Vintage groups like AHRMA and HSR. And we hope to see the facility used for testing.” Vickie added that the track also hopes to attract various racing and driving schools.

Copyright 2002, Roadracing World Publishing, Inc.

The previously announced deal between AFM, Inc. and Fastrack Riders to resurrect AFM South for the 2003 season and start holding races in Southern California again has crashed and burned.

According to Fastrack Riders Association President David Pyles, “It really just came down to simply a business decision for the AFM/FRA deal to break down. FRA had a limited number of track days at California Speedway (21 days plus a Thursday before the AMA event practice and race day) and giving up eight days to stage races in the end had serious financial implications for FASTRACK and AFM. We had to keep both organizations separate since one is a for-profit and the other a non-profit. Also, it was determined through a round-table discussion of riders it would be hard to get enough riders attending an AFM event to get to breakeven because of the cost of the speedway and what it would cost to practice and race a weekend.

“The AFM board did raise legitimate questions but I don’t want it to come off it was as a result of the AFM Board we did not conclude the deal. Each entity had reasons why we could not complete the deal solely because of business issues. If anyone is at fault it is me wanting to get the word out about the series once we shook hands with AFM to go forward. We hit snags as we got close to completing the transaction which forced us to step back and look at the numbers again. The numbers told us at this time it is better for both organizations to put the concept on the shelf till another time.”

Copyright 2002, Roadracing World Publishing, Inc.

The original spirit of Supersport was for a less expensive alternative to Superbike, or whatever class the factories competed in.

Indeed, the support has not trickled down as some thought it would over the years, but there does seem to be more teams that have stepped up to the plate, and there is some support that is now developing.

But, wasn’t there a claiming rule a few years ago? Retail cost of the bike plus an amount or so, and you could walk away with any competitor’s bike. Claiming has always been looked down upon, however. Remember the Yoshimura fork issue a couple of years ago? How about the $65,000 rear shock off the factory CBR600F4 that was claimed? I worked with and was helped by Dale Quarterley. I remember when he tried to get a set of special carbs that the Commonwealth Team had. No can do. He could claim them, but it would put him in a poor position down the road.

Everyone wants to use NASCAR an example in how successful it is. Ok, let’s really look. NASCAR has a restrictive set of rules that make it pretty much illogical for the factories to compete as one off teams. So, the factories support many teams, helping them with development of drivers, machines, etc. Everyone wins. The fans, competitors from the mechanics to the guys behind the wheel.

In AMA Superbike, there are rules that I don’t know about, special ignition boxes (I remember the HRC black boxes back for the CBR600F2s), and the like. If you think a factory bike might have a “whatever box” that is not necessarily legal, take theirs and give them a known stock unit. Better yet, have everyone bring theirs to tech, and we’ll all swap out of a bag. I think it’s pretty simple. At Road America in 1993, I remember that several factory bikes were required to bring their ignition box to tech to be surrendered, and they were given a stock unit that was apparently purchased at a dealership. It did not change the overall result, but the qualifying times did tighten up, as I remember. At least we had a fighting chance. I’ve attended some tear downs, from a distance, and I saw some things come out of bikes that was very much unlike what mine had. Hey, I was good, but was it necessary to go to those lengths to try and beat me?

As a racing/riding school instructor, I have the opportunity to talk to lots of people. I am amazed how many people that used to go to one AMA event or another choose not to. They can see that there is a distinct difference in the factory stuff and what everyone else has. Yes, they want to see all the top guys, but they want to see the local guys try and have a chance, too.

Invariably, since the AMA is looking out for motorcyclist rights and all, they need the input and support from the manufacturers. I think that corrupts the whole system for AMA Pro Racing.

I consider Ron Barrick a friend of mine. I met him when he was working with, again, Dale Quarterley. Our paths crossed at the Road America AMA event. He asked if I was riding. I basically voiced these same concerns, and that it would be unreasonable for me to do so because of the uneven playing field. I know he understands this position.

Monte Nichols, one of my instructors, finished 14th in the Supersport event behind Ty Howard. They were the top privateers. The factory bikes just motored away. Would the result have been different if the bikes were more evenly matched? Probably not, but the race would have at least been closer, and certain positions might have been different. Maybe that would have prompted Citgo Petroleum, Monte’s sponsor, to think more about supporting his program or others like it.

My question is: Who is there to tell these concerns to that can make the changes and return Supersport racing to a reasonable silhouette of what it was?

A quick shifter is $800? And it’s necessary? It’s only necessary if it makes up time, and if everyone else is already illegally using one. If they are being used illegally, then tech has a job that they should be taking care of.

“Super” Dave Rosno
Team Visionsports
Visionsports Riding Schools
http://www.team-visionsports.com
Eagle, Wisconsin

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.)

From a press release issued by Triumph:

Triumph Introduces New Superports Daytona 600 at NEC Show in Birmingham, UK

---

---

Newnan, GA – – Some three years since its introduction the Triumph TT600 has evolved into one of the most complete all-round 600cc sports machines available, winning many fans for its sheer usability and almost perfect chassis.

So, with the TT600 cementing its place in the model line-up for 2003 Triumph have responded to their customers’ desire for a fully focused -– yet very distinct and very British – supersports middleweight machine. Thus, the Daytona 600 is now reality.

---

---

The Daytona name is the stuff of legends for Triumph Motorcycles, and not used lightly. The subtle, discreet logo on the Daytona 600’s sleek bodywork reinforces just what this new bike is about; power, poise and complete control. Fully aware of its lineage Triumph has honed the Daytona 600 into an individual package that provides complete rider involvement and satisfaction, on every level.

Producing a competitive 600cc supersports machine is no easy task and, using knowledge learnt from the TT600 combined with major investment in new technology and new manufacturing processes, Triumph has done just that.

---

---

Also, impressed with the need for individuality Triumph has, in the Daytona 600, produced a machine that not only looks very different thanks to its purposeful styling and understated paintwork, but is also built with a great level of care and attention to detail – harking back to the greatest traditions of British engineering and craftsmanship.


Design Brief

Triumph’s engineers had two things in mind in the early stages of the Daytona 600’s development: less weight, more power. Simple on paper – make it lighter and faster – but much harder in reality when success in the supersport class revolves around fractions saved here, linked to tiny gains there.

---

---

But every motorcycle is the sum of its parts, so Triumph looked very hard at every single part produced during the Daytona 600’s prototype development. Finite Element Analysis (FEA) was used heavily in the design of the Daytona 600, meaning simply that highly sophisticated computer programs exhaustively examined what sort of stress any given part would be subjected to, applying strength where needed and saving mass – therefore weight – where not.

Massive work went into the Daytona’s 599cc engine – its heart and lungs. Operating efficiency in every single area was examined; friction reduced and weight saved (see Engine Tech). The target output – a super strong 112ps – was reached but not at the expense of drivability and, by utilizing Keihin twin-butterfly EFI throttle bodies and electronic ‘brain,’ throttle response is razor sharp and precise.

Triumph have proved they can build brilliant handling motorcycles, but the Daytona 600’s chassis benefited greatly from both FEA and extensive road and track evaluation at locations all over Europe.

The Daytona 600’s aerodynamically proven bodywork breaks new ground for Triumph and is an indication of the work that’s been put in by the bike’s design team. Its look, although very aggressive (as befits a supersports machine) is multi-faceted, carved with subtle ellipses giving the Daytona 600 a strong, individual presence

There was one other thing on the mind of Triumph’s engineers – class. They wanted the Daytona 600 to be a class act in every respect and to this end the solid color paint schemes are subtle, and perfectly complemented by the satin black frame and swingarm finish.


Development

Engine Tech
A supersports 600cc engine is perhaps the most finely balanced of all motorcycle power plants, packing a great deal of power into a very small space. Fuel injection has proven key in unleashing ever greater horsepower numbers from a given cubic capacity and Triumph have long been involved in pioneering this technology for motorcycle application.

A great deal of work has gone into the Daytona 600’s intake system, maximizing efficiency and therefore power. The new intake duct at the front of the fairing is placed in a positive pressure area, feeding approximately 15% more air to the 8.5-liter air box. Japanese specialist manufacturer Keihin worked very closely with Triumph during the R&D stage of the Daytona 600’s life, and have developed the four twin butterfly 38mm diameter throttle bodies specifically for the 599cc engine. To improve airflow and atomization the first butterfly is controlled by the throttle while the injector itself has been repositioned in the throttle body to inject fuel – at full throttle – directly at the back of the first butterfly. The Keihin Electronic Control Module controls the second butterfly, greatly improving the all-round drivability of the power unit. All four intake trumpet lengths have been optimized for intake pulse tuning and new transition pieces employed for the throttle bodies. In addition, a cam’d throttle actuator gives a 30% reduction in throttle travel.

The Keihin ECM utilizes a 32-bit processor. The Electronic Fuel Injection system itself is fed information from a total of seven sensors; a Manifold Air Pressure (MAP) sensor, located after the first butterfly gives a very precise gauge of the amount of fuel needed, while a barometric pressure sensor measures ambient air pressure. The wheel speed sensor monitors velocity and ensures that fuelling and ignition are perfectly matched to throttle – and crankshaft – position, which have their own sensors. The air box and water temperatures are also constantly monitored.

The Daytona 600’s engine internals have received major attention from Triumph’s engineers. Both inlet and exhaust ports have benefited from time on the flow-bench and correspondingly flow more fuel; the inlet flows 2% extra (at 9mm lift) while the exhaust flows 11% more (at 8mm lift). The combustion chamber and ports are now CNC machined, allowing much greater accuracy and consistent performance. The thermostat has been moved into the head casting for improved aesthetics while the temperature sensor is sited at the back of the head for more precise readings.

The lightweight exhaust system is made from 1.2mm wall thickness steel tubing and is of a 4-2-1design with headers 1-2 and 3-4 being linked, the header lengths have also been tuned to suit the new intake system, head porting and combustion chamber shape.

Final gearing has been optimized in order to make best use of the engine’s extra power. Peak power of 112ps arrives at 12,750rpm, with a peak torque figure of 68N/M (50.15 ft. lbs.) at 11,000rpm. Redline is set at 12,750rpm.

Weight Savings/engine (Daytona 600 compared directly to TT600)
Crankshaft – 700g
Starter motor – 420g
Plastic clutch surround suppression plate – 120g
Wrap-wrap silencer – 600g
Magnesium cam cover – 450g

Chassis Tech
Although the TT600 has been widely acclaimed as one of the finest handling middleweight machines available, Triumph were not prepared to rest on their laurels during the Daytona 600’s development. FEA was once again employed and every aspect of the new bike’s chassis underwent a stringent program of analysis, design and evaluation.

The aluminum twin spar frame may look unchanged, but is in fact a brand new design incorporating a three-cell construction, as opposed to the four-cell of the TT600 and is lighter without sacrificing any rigidity. Geometry-wise rake and trail are a fast-steering 24.6 degrees/89.1mm, wheelbase a compact 1390mm.

The bolt-on rear sub frame is made from 2mm box section aluminum and lighter also, but has a very precise amount of ‘flex’ engineered in to absorb energy (collected by the rider’s body in the air stream) which would otherwise be transmitted into the chassis at high speed. It supports the rakish tail section, stepped two-piece seat and pillion pad (which can be swapped for a color matched seat cowl) and also houses the centralized loom and electrical system, itself much lighter. One important note – the seat cowl is supplied with every Daytona 600, as is a color matched rear hugger. New foot controls save weight and are also aesthetically improved.

Unsprung mass is highly undesirable in a supersports machine as it slows steering response, so close scrutiny was paid to the Daytona 600’s suspension. The front 43mm cartridge fork benefited from a complete ground-up redesign and the use of single-rate springs. All internals – rods, cartridges and fixings – are made from aluminum saving a huge 1kg of unsprung weight, resulting in a much tauter feel and improved damping control. They are adjustable for spring preload, compression and rebound damping. The remote-reservoir rear shock has been re-valved and is also adjustable for spring preload, compression and rebound damping.

Optimization of the brake pad/disc interface allowed a reduction in disc diameter of 2mm to 308mm and a savings of 170g of unsprung mass, with no reduction in braking power or sensitivity. A pair of four-piston calipers operates on the front discs and one single-piston caliper on the rear 220mm disc.

Lightweight three spoke wheels are cast aluminum. Tires are Pirelli Dragon Corsas, 120/70 ZR17 front and 180/55 ZR17 rear, a super high performance sports compound tire fitted as standard, marking the Daytona 600’s serious track and road intent.

Weight Savings/chassis (Daytona 600 compared directly to TT600)
Frame – 685g
Bolt-on sub frame – 200g
Wiring loom – 670g
Foot control assembly – 130g
Forged gear lever – 50g
Front fork – 1kg
Front discs – 170g

Conclusion
The Daytona 600 is an important milestone for Triumph Motorcycles. It marks the ability of the British manufacturer to respond, not only to the fast-changing motorcycle market, but also to their customers’ wishes for a machine that can perform extremely well in both racetrack and sporting road environments. And just as importantly, also proves a hugely satisfying bike to simply own.

Many of Triumph’s existing customers would love a hard-edged machine either as a first or second bike, but really don’t want to own ‘just’ another 600cc sportsbike. They want cutting edge technology blended with that essential quality of Britishness that marks every Triumph motorcycle as unique. Now, in the Daytona 600, they have the machine they’ve been waiting for. Two paint finish options are available – Racing Yellow and Aluminum Silver, both featuring black frames and swingarms.

Thanks to Triumph’s commitment to producing a no-compromise sports machine there’s now a new choice for any motorcyclist considering a supersports 600 machine in 2003. The Daytona 600 blends technology, performance, class, ability and beauty in one very compact and useable package. For no small reason does Triumph’s new bike proudly wear its Daytona badge, and rightly so.

Copyright 2002, Roadracing World Publishing, Inc.


Posted by David Swarts

From an e-mail from Landers Sevier V, Corona Extra Suzuki team principal:

A bit of newsworthy info regarding the Barber track.

As you may already know, Aaron Yates tested at Barber Motorsports Park about three weeks ago in what was to be a shake-down or test of the track itself.

Aaron is the first qualified rider to evaluate the much anticipated circuit. At the time of the initial test, the track was 99% complete. All curbing was in place, gravel run-off areas were in place and the final wear surface of asphalt had been laid. After doing 20 laps on Jimmy Moore’s Corona Extra SuperStock Championship-winning GSX-R750 Yates stated, “the facilty is amazing – 80% better than any track we (the AMA Superbike series) currently compete on.” Yates went on to say that the track layout was “fast and flowing and offered lots of places to make passes. Varied elevation changes and lots of good viewing for spectators.”

Track management (and Mr. Barber), at that time, simply wanted Yates’ non-biased feedback specifically on the track surface itself as there was some concern that the surface wasn’t the absolute best it could be. Yates’ evaluation of the surface – “the surface right now is awesome. I have no complaints whatsoever. Let’s get it on the schedule for ’03.” Yates’ only constructive criticism of the surface was a slight roughness on the inside line of the downhill carousel section and one small dip on the entry to turn 7.

After Yates pointed out those two areas – Mr. Barber made the call to totally repave the ENTIRE surface. According to Mr. Barber, “patches and repair work will not be acceptable. This facility is to set the bar for road courses in North America – period. It will be the standard by which all others are judged. It will be considered The Augusta of motorsports and if it costs us several hundred thousand extra to make our surface absolutely perfect then so be it. Let’s repave.”

The original surface was ground-up and removed. Within three weeks of the initial test, Yates was invited back.

Yates, after seeing the circuit, the museum, and the overall project coming together so quickly and after he realized Mr. Barber’s dedication and commitment to making this course the finest in North America referenced Mr. Barber as…”Man, this guy ain’t no joke.”

You should call him for more of an in-depth opinion of the track and the facility as a whole. Wonder what he thinks about making a simple statement about a track surface – then seeing someone drop a half million or so dollars at the drop of hat.



Editorial Note: The Porsche Driving Experience driving school is relocating its program from Sebring and Road Atlanta to Barber effective March 2003, according to Betsy Sexton, Porsche Driving Experience Program Coordinator.

There are also reports that Porsche intends to hold the press launch for its much anticipated new SUV at Barber in January.

An inside source at Barber reports that the Barber track may host the final round of the 2003 AMA Superbike season.

Attempts to reach Jeff Ray, Executive Director of the Barber Motorsports Park, and AMA Pro Racing Superbike Operations Manager Ron Barrick to confirm the 2003 AMA race date have been unsuccessful at post time.

Copyright 2002, Roadracing World Publishing, Inc.

Racer and Graves Motorsports co-owner Chuck Graves says that AMA Pro Racing should allow electronic quick-shifters in the Superstock and Supersport classes in 2003.

“I believe it’s a standard racing item on most racing motorcycles and costs less than a set of tires,” said Graves in a phone call to Roadracingworld.com. “It’s cheap. They’re available for many motorcycles from many sources.

“Take for instance the Yoshimura EMS system, which is an inline engine and fuel management system. They have a provision there with an additional box and a small switch which attaches to the shift shaft, and you use the sidestand switch and you have an automatic shift kill built in.

“I believe that it would be easy to mask having one (under current rules). The privateers are smart enough to know, it’s common knowledge that the shifter is a standard racing item today.”

From a press release issued by USGPRU:

United States Grand Prix Riders’ Union
125cc Road Racing Grand Prix National Championship

Wednesday November 13, 2002 — In an online discussion open to all riders last evening, the USGPRU discussed and took comment on a number or rule revisions effecting the 2003 125GP National Championship Series.

Notice was sent to all members last week inviting them to attend the online discussion which was held at the USGPRU Yahoo Group chat area from 7-9:00 p.m. PST. The discussion lasted for over two hours and was attended by riders from all regions of the country.

After discussion on numerous topics and a brief question and answer period decisions were reached on a number of key rules for both 2003 and 2004 including fuel regulations, Points distribution, Teams Championships, etc.

Among the key decisions, reached by near consensus (riders and officials), was the decision to adopt the AMA Fuel Regulations currently governing the 250GP class in AMA competition in 2003. These rules permit the continued use of “leaded” fuel for the 2003 Championship.

We did this because fuel manufacturers are already familiar with the AMA rule and manufacture fuels specifically to meet the requirements outlined in the AMA’s regulations. Testing is straightforward and the rule addresses concern many riders had about the addition of dangerous and toxic performance/power enhancing fuel additives.

Information on the most common fuels and their compliance with the AMA rule is detailed in the tech are of the USGPRU website.

For 2004 it was resolved, with dramatic support from riders, to adopt a fuel regulation patterned after the FIM Unleaded fuel regulations. We were absolutely stunned at the support we got for this from the riders for the switch to Unleaded in 2004.

As an association we had increasing concern that US Grand Prix racing was becoming too divergent after nearly 6 years of leaded fuel use in the US after the near global switch to unleaded in 1997. Every other major national and International Championship mandates the use of unleaded fuels and the bikes have been specifically designed and manufactured to run on unleaded fuels since 1997.

By continuing to run on leaded fuels US riders were ignoring the continued advances in every aspect of engine development and punishing riders and teams who commit to the purchase of new Grand Prix machines by forcing them to convert to outdated fuels and standards that are no longer in use throughout the rest of the world. We feel this will encourage more teams to invest in new bikes in the coming seasons and elevate the level of competition throughout the field.

The decision to adopt unleaded in 2004 was made to allow over a year’s time for teams to make the conversion back to unleaded. In most cases the only change required will be to the head volume which can be done for less that $125.00 per head as machines manufactured after 1996 we all equipped with CDI’s for unleaded fuel. The rule will not apply to machines manufactured prior to 1995.

The use of Double Points for key regional and final events will be discontinued and the USGPRU will score riders and teams on the same FIM points schedule used in 2002 without the application of Double points awards at particular events.

The USGPRU has also instituted a National Team Championship. Teams will consist of two riders riding on near identical machinery of the same manufacture. Teams will be required to have identical paint schemes on both machines and may only substitute riders in the event of injury. A minimum standard for appearance of machines will be enforced and all crew members for participating teams will be required to be in uniform at all times. Team Championship sponsor decals will be required on all machines and riders will be required to list these in their individual sponsor listings as well.

Information on cost effective uniform suppliers will be posted shortly to the USGPRU web site at www.usgpru.org as well as details on rules regulating the Team Championship.