Copyright 2002, Roadracing World Publishng, Inc.

I was watching the AMA supersport qualifying at Laguna Seca from the corkscrew this year, and heard the distinctive backfiring of Tommy Hayden’s Kawasaki shifting with the aid of an ignition kill quick-shift mechanism. I have had numerous discussions with various AMA tech officials over the years concerning spark boxes, and asked the officials that day about their position on use of ignition kill devices.

It would be nice to decide an issue like this on simple principles of supersport racing and cost. Unfortunately, the problem is technically complicated, and doesn’t lend itself well to simple considerations.

Let’s look at the recent history of spark boxes. Newer technology made competitively fair spark box performance progressively more difficult to identify and describe. It became obvious that “standard equipment” was a concept that the officials were not going to be able to fairly enforce.

Rulemaking and enforcement had to consider technology that included the ability to reprogram stock spark boxes in the pits, or select special ignition curves curves during operation . Because manufacturers need to ship motorcycles with ignition curves that limit engine operation to ranges where they are willing to warranty the motor, special racing curves or programming are not documented or disclosed to customers. Undocumented features on some spark boxes are selected using unusual sequences entered through the standard controls, like on/off switches. Others are selected using hidden switches, like magnetic sensors in the box itself. In these cases, the racer is gaining an unfair advantage through his crew’s knowledge of the stock equipment, not the equipment itself. The selection of special curves or programming can disappear when the battery is disconnected, the spark box is unplugged, or the feature is deactivated.

Because aftermarket spark boxes were readily available, it was reasonably fair to deregulate spark boxes so that ignition curves and rev limiter values can be competitively established, rather than granting factories the advantage of allowing themselves, and only themselves, to conceal and obfuscate the competition capabilities of stock spark boxes.

With ignition kill devices, the same thing is true. Even without any intentional design, spark boxes have the ability to function as ignition kill devices. I have placed gentle pressure on the shift lever as I reach max rpm, and allowed the rev limiter to stutter the motor enough for the shift to take place – full throttle and no clutch – with a clunk and a wheelie. Spark boxes that are specifically optimized to do this do a better job, and fall well within existing supersport rules. The existing rules also do not prohibit sensors on the shift linkage. With some technologies, a signal can make it back from the shift linkage to the spark box. So, given that it would be possible to implement all of the functionality of the best ignition kill devices within the existing rules, it does not make a great deal of sense to maintain a prohibition of separate ignition kill devices.

The lighter side is that the spark box manufacturers (who have not already done so to one degree or another) will likely alter their designs to include input from additional sensors for this feature, and embed this functionality within their standard products. Integrated ignition kill devices do not backfire like the bolt-on units, and the additional cost of implementing this feature is very small, especially if the rules allow simple wiring and sensors.

From the sound of the backfiring, I doubt that Tommy’s quick shifter was technically legal. If I were the official and it were up to me, I would have torn his bike down, and if I found that there was a wire that was not allowed or improperly connected, I would have disqualified him. A lot of “ifs”. But I would have also expected to hear a chorus of complaints about how most of the top bikes had quick shifters, and that I was unfairly picking on Tommy because his bike just happened to not utilize the level of technology that riders of other brands had access to.

Its a tough position. I appreciate the viewpoint that supersports should be unmodified from stock, but in this case I believe that the AMA’s choice is best for those without access to factory technology.

Jay Sherritt
Boulder, Colorado




I find it funny that the AMA works so hard at trying to make things look even on paper and yet they never bother to enforce the rules on those that have the money to break them…rather they accuse the $$poor$$ privateers of rule-breaking when they run faster than expected.

Someone mentioned NASCAR and their rules and how well they are both enforce and lived by. I know that NASCAR issues restrictor plate for some track to keep speeds down and fines teams for breaking rules…like using too many tires and shaving their springs. Their rules are worked out with all the teams and not just a few rich teams.

I am leaving the USA this winter and will not be watching AMA racing next year…but had I stayed here I’m not so sure I would have anyway. They can’t seem to stop looking foolish and making life miserable for both the racer and the fan.

Just a simple fan.

Tony Peters
Fort Meage, Maryland




Hey, somebody please tell Jim Rashid to race a Superbike. I remember seeing a 4&6 600SS bike @ Road America in the mid-90s dicing with the factory boys and if I recollect the machine made the podium. I thought that was fabulous.

Of course in due time I think it was DQd but I’m not sure. Maybe 4&6 needs to go Superbiking to best exploit their particular talent?

I haven’t commented before but, to me, this fellow is out of line. I just wish more people like him would find their level (he should run with the big boys) and quit trying to be a big fish in a smaller pond. The way I see it it may cost more to run a SBK operation but these bikes seem to be competitive for 3-5 years. I don’t like the AMA’s shrinking of the race programs and unless something happens, like the Japanese running races combined i.e. Superbike & FX, we’re gonna see the whole shebang just evaporate.

I know, I know mucho $$$ but somehow I think we’ve got to get everybody running the BIG class. I’m 49 and remember NASCAR in the mid-60s when the factories kept upping the ante. Technological nirvana, much as it has been for the last 15
years in SBK. I love the different solutions and various styles as well as the great tuners involved.

Phil Burre
Oradell, New Jersey





I would like to start out by agreeing with a couple of the readers who have taken the time to submit responses to Mr. Bell’s aggravated email submission. That is, your magazine does the cycling world a great service by providing a relatively unbiased, informative periodical that keeps the majority of us up to date with the goings on in the motorcycle industry and the surrounding events. For this I thank you and eagerly await the next issue.

The issue in hand is that Mr. Bell is upset in the incomplete comparison and contrast done on the two locations discussed.The real underlying reasons have been addressed by Alan Wilson and his email response made to steep all of this hot air blowing.

It is nice to read that there is someone quick enough to see the underlying problem in finding the proper venue for this event. The sad part here is the amount of selfishness and skirtitude that will surround the decision making process while finalizing the event location. My only hope is that there might be someone with enough foresight to see that if we do not pick the proper track location for this one time event we may not have the opportunity to host another event like this for some time.

The proper thing to do might be to have a large corporate sponsor support and assist the best suited private track to mold themselves in to the perfect sight. Some of these tracks might be the Barber Motorsports Complex, Laguna Seca, Las Vegas, or VIR. What ever the choice America, we must come together without bias or we may not have this chance again for some time. That would be another disaster for the USA, no matter what your ethnic background.

A moment of clearity, please.

Geoff Allen
CCS Expert #206
Fairfax, Virginia




I’ve heard many of the arguments, and all I have to say is if it is promoted correctly (copious amounts of advertising and a lot of fan fare), like what the promoters did for the return of the F1 to the US at Indy two or three years ago, people will show up in large numbers.

Case in point, Bikertoberfest:
– end of the riding/racing season for many in attendance, which is always a reason to send the year off with a celebration
– Daytona Beach – warm weather compared to the rest of the country (Homestead should be even warmer)
– lots of fan fare with thousands of people in attendance from all across the US and Canada, even some from Mexico and South America (granted many are not there for the race, but that’s part of the promotional activities)
– Hey, when you were in Daytona Beach for Bikertoberfest, didn’t you ponder driving the 4 hours to Miami to party? After driving half way across the US, what’s 4 more hours.

Another point:
– All people in attendance to races are not fans of racing. For a lot of people, it’s about the party; plain and simple. I bet all of us married guys/gals with uninterested spouses would stand a better chance at attending a race near Miami in October, than in many other places.

If Homestead is close to Miami (an major international city, unlike some of the potential venues), it probably has much more to offer, shopping, sites, more beaches, and lots of entertainment, than an Indianapolis can. Of course Las Vegas Motor Speedway Facility and Las Vegas the city aren’t slouches when it comes to motor sports and entertainment, but I’ve seen the infield track during the Ducati Revs American Weekend, I wasn’t that impressed (too short and far too narrow, I’m a Road American fan), although the overall facilities were extremely nice. There were also many racing or racing related facilities that surrounded the area outside the Superspeedway. It’s possible that a specially built course could be constructed that would add to the whole LVMS experience, so don’t give up on the possibility.

I can’t say much about Homestead because I haven’t seen it.

If the promoters for the US MOTOGP spend the money correctly, make the track something all amateur and professional racers dream of racing on, with a paddock unlike that which is provided at any other venue in North America, I’ll buy my ticket two years in advance just to see it close up. I’ll also hang out near the track in the evening because I heard the parties are insane. I’m sure it will dwarf my Friday/Saturday night experiences at the AMA rounds at Road America. Not to mention if DORNA can get the factories to act right and move more North Americans (Americans, Canadians, Mexicans and Puerto Ricans) to all levels MOTOGP racing, with plenty of wildcards offered to North Americans, it will work without a doubt no matter where you put it (within reason of course.)

If they act fast enough, maybe they can jump on the coat tails of Harley Davidson’s 100th Anniversary American Tour to aid the promotion efforts. And don’t forget the International Motorcycle Shows here in the US. We want to see the exotic GP bikes also. I can’t tell you the buzz I got when I saw Rossi’s RSW250, or Kenny Roberts’ RGV500, or Troy Corser’s Mille.

Sean Wyatt
CCS Midwest #629
Chicago, Illinois




And now a response from Jim Rashid:

Hi guys , just thought I would respond to that guy’s comments.

I am glad someone did remember when a true privateer race effort made the podium in a AMA 600 race at a true road course that is one of the fastest tracks in the world. Not only did we make the podium but we won with Todd Harrington riding. It was done on a Kawasaki with no help from Kawasaki. The month before that race I was told by the man running Kawasaki’s race program that I would not receive any help from them until we proved ourselves at the regional level. I explained we already did that as in the early 1990s the only bikes winning everything in our regional races were built by 4&6. He didn’t care.

At Mid-Ohio before the Road America round we finished 4th and 5th with Todd and Owen Weichel. Oh and by the way, our bike was found to be legal at Road America! So as the big fish in a little pond theory, you’re way off base! You couldn’t be a smaller fish than me. AMA 600 level racing is not for the competively challenged so why change anything to make it that way? Our goal in 600 was to beat as many factory bikes as possible.

For 2003 there are at least 20 factory-supported 600s, quite a little pond I guess. Yes, racing Superbike would be fun and no doubt we could be competitive–have a spare million or so we can borrow? Actually the 600 class is stronger than Superbike with its few factory entries, just look at the 750 Suzukisport bikes that finished so high in it last year. I could go on and on with this but I’m sure you get my point.

Jim Rashid
4&6 Cycle
Chicago, Illinois

From a press release issued by series organizers:

The following is a list of the provisional rule changes for 2003. While this may not be the final version, any further changes are expected to be minimal.

The FIM will release the final set of rules in the near future.


2.8.39 Four stroke engines

1. Motorcycles engines of mass production only, with a Stocksport homologation.
2. Maximum capacity: 1005 cc.
3. 4 cylinders maximum
4. The original crankcase and cylinders may be modified, but stroke and bore must remain as originally produced by the manufacturer.
5. Crankshaft and flywheel must be original. Balancing and polishing is allowed. Welding is not allowed. The minimum weight must be 95% of the original part.
6. Connecting rods may be altered or changed. The length must remain as original. The material must be of similar alloy as homologated. The minimum weight of a modified or replaced connecting rod must be 95% of the original part.
7. Pistons, piston rings and piston pins may be altered or replaced, but the bore must remain as homologated.
8. The original cylinder head may be modified, welding is allowed only in case of repair (this means that it is not allowed to have each cylinder welded in the same positions). The number of ports, valves, the diameter of the valves must remain as originally produced by the manufacturer.
9. Valves, valve springs and valve spring retainers may be altered or replaced, but valve and valve spring material must remain the same.
10. Carburettors may be altered or replaced. Fuel injection is free and can be replaced by carburettors.
11. Camshaft may be altered or replaced.
12. The cam drive method must remain as originally produced by the manufacturer.
13. Cam sprockets can be modified or replaced.
14. The ignition/engine control system is free.
15. The gear ratios are free. The maximum number of gears must remain as originally produced by the manufacturer.
16. The clutch system type must remain as originally produced by the manufacturer. Clutch springs, plates and basket may be altered or replaced.
17. The generator may be removed
18. Electric starter must be in place and work. The engine must start on the grid with the electric starter for the warm up lap before the start of the race.
19. The use of exotic materials such as ceramics, metal matrix or aluminium beryllium is not allowed.
20. Oil lubrication system is free.

For 2003 only
Engines which have been introduced on the public market 1995 or before: Max capacity 1100cc. Bore and stroke must remain as originally produced by the manufacturer. In all other points they may be modified according to the rules of 2002.

Air box 2.8.xx
An air box must be used.

The air box must completely closed around the induction. Bell mouths, the carburettors or throttle bodies may be entirely with in the air box.

The engine must have a closed breather system. The engine breather must be connected and discharge in the air box.

The air box must be constructed in such a way as to prevent any oil discharged in the air box from spilling on the track. This oil containment must hold a minimum of 1000 cc of oil.
The air box must be sealed to prevent any spillage of oil or fuel.

The inlet into the air box from the air ducts or open air must be above the lowest point of the bell mouth lips.


2.3.5 Wheel Rims and Tyres
The front wheel rim width must be 9″ maximum.
The rear and side tyres rim width must be maximum 11″.

2.8.16
Delete the sentence regarding the fixing points of side to main body.

2.8.25
2) Side and rear tyres must not exceed 254 mm measured like at point 1)

2.8.xy
The use of traction control system is not allowed

2.8.xz
The use of non passive suspensions is forbidden.

2.8.20.3
Modify: ” The ignition cut out must be placed as near to the centre of the handlebar as possible and must be operated by a non-elastic string of adequate length and thickness and strapped to the driver’s body………”

Noise
Max. 105 db/A measured at 5500 rpm

Copyright 2002, Roadracing World Publishing, Inc.

Slick tires are a half-a-second a lap faster than DOTs but they aren’t legal for Supersport racing. Nor should electric shifters be. Since the “selectively blind” tech inspectors in the AMA can’t find what makes Eric Bostrom’s ZX6-R go 165mph, they are not going to find the quick shifters in the “Supersport Legal” Black Boxes on the factory bikes.

I think that at EVERY SINGLE RACE, there should be a lottery based on bike numbers, and as the bikes are pushed out for morning warmup, the AMA should hand out a stock CDI purchased from a dealership, marked and tagged in some way, to the randomly chosen teams. That way they get one last chance to make their bike run right in its newly detuned state.

“Good” Electric shifters are not simple to setup for amateur mechanics/riders. Nor are they reliable electronically, ask anyone who has used one. When you crash and tear your rearset off, you have to buy another switching mechanism, and repair the wiring. They are way harder on transmissions, particularly during the dial-in process.

There is not even a debatable reason to allow them. Why doesn’t somebody just make the factories stop cheating so BLATANTLY? You can’t stop them from cheating, but they are all obviously sweating bullets about getting caught at this; they are too exposed. When their bikes are popping and banging between shifts, it is blatantly obvious they are cheating, and they all know it. No one seems to have the guts to stop it.

Max McAllister
President
Traxxion Dynamics, Inc.
Woodstock, Georgia




I have never understood how tech inspectors can be unable to tell if the factory is using a particular banned device. Seems simple to me: A post race inspection including a test ride to see if the device functions. Now I am sure a factory could still hide a switch somewhere in the cases or something that is not easily found…

In the alternative or in addition to:

What was wrong with the claiming rule we used to have? I remember back when a dominant race winner’s factory 600 SS bike was claimed after winning a race.

The factory team was not happy about it but the privateer that bought the bike certainly was happy with it!

Seems a reasonable claiming rule would do more toward eliminating the domination of factory special bikes in the supposedly close to stock Supersport/Superstock classes.

I could see being a privateer, showing up at the first race of the year with last year’s 600 and claiming one of the leading 600s instead of buying a new bike for this year. Seems a simple way to trickle the factory technology down through the ranks and thereby leveling out the playing field a bit.

George Leavell, former racer
Gilroy, California






I hope you can post this, but realize a lot has already been said on this subject.

I’m writing to air my feelings on the Bell/USGP posts. I think the nail was best hit on the head by Jason Temme. While I don’t feel insulted by the comments of Tony Bell,being a first generation American of Hungarian and Colombian descent, I don’t see why he had to use Cuba as an example, the everglades would’ve been good enough. Last time I checked Cuba wasn’t part of the USA. He didn’t help his cause by making the remark of Daytona being the “boob,booze,fun” getaway. That kind of makes you wonder about his mindset off the bat. Just not very professional at all.

I think I speak on the behalf of many racers in that we go to Daytona because it is DAYTONA. I’ve made a lot of friends from all across the country there that have justed wanted to experience it once. It is the MECCA of bike racers in the USA,like it or not. Harley guys go for the boobs and booze. Racers go foremost for the track.

On the USGP subject, I don’t understand Indy being a choice for a bike race. It is just another cookie-cutter NASJUNK track with some turns on the infield to attract F1. There are already too many tracks that we bike racers are racing on or spectating at that have the dreaded oval incorporated. We need more Road Atlantas, VIRs and Mid-Ohios. Less Las Vegas, Homesteads, PPRs. Road America or Brainerd would be logical because those tracks have straights the MotoGP bikes could stretch their legs on with crazy braking moves available at the end of them.

In the meantime, I’m making plans to go to Mugello in ’03 to see a real GP with all the classes there. Why Mugello? Because it’s not Valencia.

Brian Surtees
Springfield, Virginia




I was quite surprised when I read that Homestead was the favored track to host a USGP. I have been hopeful that with the increasing number of Americans racing in MotoGP, we in the States would be added to list of countries that host one of the rounds. The WSB race attendance at Laguna Seca demonstrate the ever increasing enthusiasm for world level racing. Sure we’re not like Spain or Italy, but spectators nearing 100,000 in number are impressive.

I am pessimistic about Homestead attracting attendance rivaling that of Laguna Seca. Other readers have accurately pointed out that it is remote. This fact will detract people from attending. Most enthusiasts also despise the layout of the track, or better said, having a MotoGP event inside a ‘circus ring.’ A true road course is what we should be aiming for.

So what happens if attendance doesn’t meet the promoter’s expectations in order to turn a profit? I doubt ISC will continue to pour money down a drain. They may float the race for a year or two more, hoping for a turnaround, but that’s it. After this potential failure, how difficult would it be to attract another promoter for a Grand Prix? I would think many would be deterred from giving it a try. Dorna would certainly be unimpressed about the lack of success in holding a USGP. This would be the second time in a decade to have the USGP fail. Would they be eager to give it another try in the near future? I seriously doubt it.

Let’s aim for success this time around. Host the round in an area that would be more inviting for everyone. Barber Motorsports Park seems like an outstanding facility for the event, as do VIR, Laguna Seca, along with many other wonderful road courses.

I’m not sure how much say or influence you have in this matter in regards to your position in the AMA Board of Directors, but please do what you can. I’ve followed your magazine and your editorials for a long time now, and I am always impressed with your views. A MotoGP round in America would be fantastic, but if it’s not done right this time, we can be assured it will soon disappear again.

Sincerely,

Alex Peabody
Oxnard, California




Homestead Pros & Cons:

Cons:

1. A road race at Homestead!!!???

Pros:

1. Bill France marketing muscle

2. Schedule it during Bike Week/Biketoberfest to bring in the crowds

3. Miami Metro area nearby

4. Warm weather – a March or October race can easily be added to MOTOGP calendar

5. Lots of European vacationers there. They may attend, even if Americans do not.

6. Maimi convenient to Latin American fans (US residents and foreign guests). MOTOGP races in Brazil and Argentina have been well attended.

7. So, after the race you can party in South Beach or Indianapolis. What would you do?

John Norton
Salem, New Hampshire





Sorry, I haven’t been on the site in a couple of days and this e-mail is a little late but after reading Erik Buell’s comments on AMA Pro Racing and their decisions regarding Pro Thunder, I really don’t think that Erik came off too harsh at all and has nothing to apologize for or feel regret for saying.

Erik, we could feel your passion and love for the sport ringing throughout your writings.

I raced my first AMA Pro racing event in Buell Pro Thunder 2 years ago on a Ducati, I have always been a Ducati person and never paid much attention to the Buells up until that point. I was completely amazed with the speed and performance of them. To this day every time someone pokes fun at a Buell around me I have to tell them that Buells are not oil-dripping couches. They are racebikes, built by a racer! And that racer sponsors an entire Pro racing series.

I felt that the Buell Pro Thunder series was a great platform for racers that didn’t want to race in the 600 or 750 class and get a 30th-something finishing position on a bike that every 18-year-old kid in town can purchase from their local dealer. As well as have highly paid Pros blazing past them on factory bikes and flipping them off becuase the slow guys are “out there looking for Wal-Mart.”

There is a racing void now that there is not a Twins class in AMA Pro Racing.

Ben Fox
MRA #95
Colorado Springs, Colorado
www.foxperformanceengines.com

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.