Group: rec.motorcycles.racing
Discussion of all aspects of racing motorcycles.
Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
And away we go!
Re: And away we go!
Howard Kveck wrote:
> Mark N wrote:
>> Howard Kveck wrote:
>>> Mark N wrote:
>>> [regarding NASCAR]
>>>> the Japanese were let in only very recently.
>>> A couple reasons for the late appearance of the Japanese factories in
>>> NASCAR:
>>> they've only recently had a car big enough to fit the rules, and the lack
>>> of an
>>> engine of the correct spec (carbureted, iron block, pushrod V-8). That and
>>> a lack of
>>> real interest in doing it.
>> http :// www .pacificcitizen.org/content/2007/national/mar2-stom-nascar.htm
>> http :// sports.yahoo,com /nascar/news?slug=jb-toyota030908&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
>> http :// sports,es pn.go,com /rpm/news/story?series=2&id&48503
>
> And your point is... what? The fact that there is a certain amount of negative fan
> reaction now that Toyota is racing NASCAR would be enough to have kept them out all
> these years? I think they've experienced negative fan reaction in any kind of racing
> they've ever done, as has every manufacturer. It certainly isn't limited to just
> Toyota. Dodge fans hating on Chevy or Ford fans and their preferred car and vice
> versa has been going on since they started racing. Tell me what car any of them would
> have been running in, say, 1985. How about telling me what engine they'd have been
> using, as long as you're at it.
My point is what it was originally, that there is an almost undeniable
racial aspect to the popularity of NASCAR, and that this can be seen in
the reaction to a Japanese manufacturer daring to come into the series.
You and I both know NASCAR totally controls the spec of the cars allowed
into their series, and can change that to manipulate results whenever
they want. And it's no coincidence that they have effectively frozen the
rules based on '60s and '70s Detroit muscle cars, the cars that appeal
most to the mentality (and I use that term loosely, I suspect) of their
target audience.
Not certain, but you seem to be claiming that it's just a matter of
Toyota not having a motor that fits the rules and not much interest in
racing in the series beyond that, and apparently are dismissive beyond
that. But if NASCAR was truly open-minded and wanted to expand their
audience and appeal to the broader tastes in cars of people today, why
wouldn't they have tried to bring in non-domestic manufacturers and/or
update their formula? The reason quite obviously is that they don't want
to mess with success, they don't want to rock the boat, they don't want
to alienate their core audience. And I think we all have a pretty good
idea what that core audience is...
Howard Kveck wrote:
> Mark N wrote:
>> Howard Kveck wrote:
>>> Mark N wrote:
>>> [regarding NASCAR]
>>>> the Japanese were let in only very recently.
>>> A couple reasons for the late appearance of the Japanese factories in
>>> NASCAR:
>>> they've only recently had a car big enough to fit the rules, and the lack
>>> of an
>>> engine of the correct spec (carbureted, iron block, pushrod V-8). That and
>>> a lack of
>>> real interest in doing it.
>> http :// www .pacificcitizen.org/content/2007/national/mar2-stom-nascar.htm
>> http :// sports.yahoo,com /nascar/news?slug=jb-toyota030908&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
>> http :// sports,es pn.go,com /rpm/news/story?series=2&id&48503
>
> And your point is... what? The fact that there is a certain amount of negative fan
> reaction now that Toyota is racing NASCAR would be enough to have kept them out all
> these years? I think they've experienced negative fan reaction in any kind of racing
> they've ever done, as has every manufacturer. It certainly isn't limited to just
> Toyota. Dodge fans hating on Chevy or Ford fans and their preferred car and vice
> versa has been going on since they started racing. Tell me what car any of them would
> have been running in, say, 1985. How about telling me what engine they'd have been
> using, as long as you're at it.
My point is what it was originally, that there is an almost undeniable
racial aspect to the popularity of NASCAR, and that this can be seen in
the reaction to a Japanese manufacturer daring to come into the series.
You and I both know NASCAR totally controls the spec of the cars allowed
into their series, and can change that to manipulate results whenever
they want. And it's no coincidence that they have effectively frozen the
rules based on '60s and '70s Detroit muscle cars, the cars that appeal
most to the mentality (and I use that term loosely, I suspect) of their
target audience.
Not certain, but you seem to be claiming that it's just a matter of
Toyota not having a motor that fits the rules and not much interest in
racing in the series beyond that, and apparently are dismissive beyond
that. But if NASCAR was truly open-minded and wanted to expand their
audience and appeal to the broader tastes in cars of people today, why
wouldn't they have tried to bring in non-domestic manufacturers and/or
update their formula? The reason quite obviously is that they don't want
to mess with success, they don't want to rock the boat, they don't want
to alienate their core audience. And I think we all have a pretty good
idea what that core audience is...
Re: And away we go!
In article <fcadndCM_78fNpPVnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@giganews,com >,
Mark N <menusbaum@NYETSPAMearthlink,net > wrote:
> Howard Kveck wrote:
> > Mark N wrote:
> >> Howard Kveck wrote:
> >>> Mark N wrote:
> >>> [regarding NASCAR]
> >>>> the Japanese were let in only very recently.
> >>> A couple reasons for the late appearance of the Japanese factories in
> >>> NASCAR: they've only recently had a car big enough to fit the rules, and the lack
> >>> of an engine of the correct spec (carbureted, iron block, pushrod V-8). That
> >>> and a lack of real interest in doing it.
> >> http :// www .pacificcitizen.org/content/2007/national/mar2-stom-nascar.htm
> >> http :// sports.yahoo,com /nascar/news?slug=jb-toyota030908&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
> >> http :// sports,es pn.go,com /rpm/news/story?series=2&id=2648503
> >
> > And your point is... what? The fact that there is a certain amount of
> > negative fan reaction now that Toyota is racing NASCAR would be enough to have kept them
> > out all these years? I think they've experienced negative fan reaction in any kind
> > of racing they've ever done, as has every manufacturer. It certainly isn't limited
> > to just Toyota. Dodge fans hating on Chevy or Ford fans and their preferred car and
> > vice versa has been going on since they started racing. Tell me what car any of
> > them would have been running in, say, 1985. How about telling me what engine they'd
> > have been using, as long as you're at it.
>
> My point is what it was originally, that there is an almost undeniable
> racial aspect to the popularity of NASCAR, and that this can be seen in
> the reaction to a Japanese manufacturer daring to come into the series.
Undeniable? Really? Such as? As for the reaction to Toyota entering the scene,
yeah, I don't deny there are some cretins who are going to get worked up over it for
jingoistic and racial reasons. I doubt that is the majority reaction though, since
the core of NASCAR fans is pretty much across the country and economic and racial
lines.
> You and I both know NASCAR totally controls the spec of the cars allowed
> into their series, and can change that to manipulate results whenever
> they want. And it's no coincidence that they have effectively frozen the
> rules based on '60s and '70s Detroit muscle cars, the cars that appeal
> most to the mentality (and I use that term loosely, I suspect) of their
> target audience.
No, I think they set the spec of the car to be one that works for all of the
competitors. You bet it's outdated but it works great for what they do. Do you really
think the average NASCAR fan is sitting around stewing about the thought they might
have the cars run independent suspension instead of truck arm, or overhead cams?
> Not certain, but you seem to be claiming that it's just a matter of
> Toyota not having a motor that fits the rules and not much interest in
> racing in the series beyond that, and apparently are dismissive beyond
> that.
Once again: Until fairly recently, no Japanese manufacturer had a car that was the
size that NASCAR wanted and none of them had an engine that fit the specs. Their lack
of interest until recently has changed due to the popularity of the races. The cars
that NASCAR is running now is smaller than it was in the early '80s by a little bit,
which mades the Japanese cars a bit closer and the American public has been buying
the larger cars that Japan has offered. Those are factors that have changed the
Japanese manufacturers minds about the gains to be had from racing NASCAR.
> But if NASCAR was truly open-minded and wanted to expand their
> audience and appeal to the broader tastes in cars of people today, why
> wouldn't they have tried to bring in non-domestic manufacturers and/or
> update their formula? The reason quite obviously is that they don't want
> to mess with success, they don't want to rock the boat, they don't want
> to alienate their core audience. And I think we all have a pretty good
> idea what that core audience is...
Yeah, they don't want to mess with success - if anyone else wants to play, they
will need to find a way to fit the bill. That's pretty simple. Has WSB done anything
overt to get BMW (for instance) into their racing? Not that I can recall. BMW has
made a progression in their bikes to where they have one that they think will
compete, which is why they're going to be out next year. This kind of thing happens
in many series that involve production vehicles.
I wouldn't be so quick to try to paint the core of NASCAR fans as racists. Yeah,
it started in the south - you seem to think that everyone in the south is a racist
and that is the only part of the country watching NASCAR. As for racism, well, I'm
going to leave that one alone, Mark.
--
tanx,
Howard
Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
In article <fcadndCM_78fNpPVnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@giganews,com >,
Mark N <menusbaum@NYETSPAMearthlink,net > wrote:
> Howard Kveck wrote:
> > Mark N wrote:
> >> Howard Kveck wrote:
> >>> Mark N wrote:
> >>> [regarding NASCAR]
> >>>> the Japanese were let in only very recently.
> >>> A couple reasons for the late appearance of the Japanese factories in
> >>> NASCAR: they've only recently had a car big enough to fit the rules, and the lack
> >>> of an engine of the correct spec (carbureted, iron block, pushrod V-8). That
> >>> and a lack of real interest in doing it.
> >> http :// www .pacificcitizen.org/content/2007/national/mar2-stom-nascar.htm
> >> http :// sports.yahoo,com /nascar/news?slug=jb-toyota030908&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
> >> http :// sports,es pn.go,com /rpm/news/story?series=2&id=2648503
> >
> > And your point is... what? The fact that there is a certain amount of
> > negative fan reaction now that Toyota is racing NASCAR would be enough to have kept them
> > out all these years? I think they've experienced negative fan reaction in any kind
> > of racing they've ever done, as has every manufacturer. It certainly isn't limited
> > to just Toyota. Dodge fans hating on Chevy or Ford fans and their preferred car and
> > vice versa has been going on since they started racing. Tell me what car any of
> > them would have been running in, say, 1985. How about telling me what engine they'd
> > have been using, as long as you're at it.
>
> My point is what it was originally, that there is an almost undeniable
> racial aspect to the popularity of NASCAR, and that this can be seen in
> the reaction to a Japanese manufacturer daring to come into the series.
Undeniable? Really? Such as? As for the reaction to Toyota entering the scene,
yeah, I don't deny there are some cretins who are going to get worked up over it for
jingoistic and racial reasons. I doubt that is the majority reaction though, since
the core of NASCAR fans is pretty much across the country and economic and racial
lines.
> You and I both know NASCAR totally controls the spec of the cars allowed
> into their series, and can change that to manipulate results whenever
> they want. And it's no coincidence that they have effectively frozen the
> rules based on '60s and '70s Detroit muscle cars, the cars that appeal
> most to the mentality (and I use that term loosely, I suspect) of their
> target audience.
No, I think they set the spec of the car to be one that works for all of the
competitors. You bet it's outdated but it works great for what they do. Do you really
think the average NASCAR fan is sitting around stewing about the thought they might
have the cars run independent suspension instead of truck arm, or overhead cams?
> Not certain, but you seem to be claiming that it's just a matter of
> Toyota not having a motor that fits the rules and not much interest in
> racing in the series beyond that, and apparently are dismissive beyond
> that.
Once again: Until fairly recently, no Japanese manufacturer had a car that was the
size that NASCAR wanted and none of them had an engine that fit the specs. Their lack
of interest until recently has changed due to the popularity of the races. The cars
that NASCAR is running now is smaller than it was in the early '80s by a little bit,
which mades the Japanese cars a bit closer and the American public has been buying
the larger cars that Japan has offered. Those are factors that have changed the
Japanese manufacturers minds about the gains to be had from racing NASCAR.
> But if NASCAR was truly open-minded and wanted to expand their
> audience and appeal to the broader tastes in cars of people today, why
> wouldn't they have tried to bring in non-domestic manufacturers and/or
> update their formula? The reason quite obviously is that they don't want
> to mess with success, they don't want to rock the boat, they don't want
> to alienate their core audience. And I think we all have a pretty good
> idea what that core audience is...
Yeah, they don't want to mess with success - if anyone else wants to play, they
will need to find a way to fit the bill. That's pretty simple. Has WSB done anything
overt to get BMW (for instance) into their racing? Not that I can recall. BMW has
made a progression in their bikes to where they have one that they think will
compete, which is why they're going to be out next year. This kind of thing happens
in many series that involve production vehicles.
I wouldn't be so quick to try to paint the core of NASCAR fans as racists. Yeah,
it started in the south - you seem to think that everyone in the south is a racist
and that is the only part of the country watching NASCAR. As for racism, well, I'm
going to leave that one alone, Mark.
--
tanx,
Howard
Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
Re: And away we go!
Howard Kveck wrote:
> Mark N wrote:
>> Howard Kveck wrote:
>> My point is what it was originally, that there is an almost undeniable
>> racial aspect to the popularity of NASCAR, and that this can be seen in
>> the reaction to a Japanese manufacturer daring to come into the series.
>
> Undeniable? Really? Such as? As for the reaction to Toyota entering the scene,
> yeah, I don't deny there are some cretins who are going to get worked up over it for
> jingoistic and racial reasons. I doubt that is the majority reaction though, since
> the core of NASCAR fans is pretty much across the country and economic and racial
> lines.
While that perhaps is mostly true today, and I don't entirely buy into
the NASCAR-published demographics (which mostly seem to be used to sell
sponsorship and distance themselves from their past image), I do think
it's only been true fairly recently, at most a decade. And I think there
are aspects to the image of Nascar that have drawn some people in,
allowed them to become interested, that aren't entirely positive.
Depending on how you look at it, of course...
>> You and I both know NASCAR totally controls the spec of the cars allowed
>> into their series, and can change that to manipulate results whenever
>> they want. And it's no coincidence that they have effectively frozen the
>> rules based on '60s and '70s Detroit muscle cars, the cars that appeal
>> most to the mentality (and I use that term loosely, I suspect) of their
>> target audience.
>
> No, I think they set the spec of the car to be one that works for all of the
> competitors. You bet it's outdated but it works great for what they do. Do you really
> think the average NASCAR fan is sitting around stewing about the thought they might
> have the cars run independent suspension instead of truck arm, or overhead cams?
No, the fans of real racing, the fans interested in the equipment and
technology, are probably watching F1 or maybe Indy Car. You know, fans
like a large portion of motorcycle racing fans. But that doesn't have
anything at all to do with Nascar wanting to freeze their technology in
time.
>> But if NASCAR was truly open-minded and wanted to expand their
>> audience and appeal to the broader tastes in cars of people today, why
>> wouldn't they have tried to bring in non-domestic manufacturers and/or
>> update their formula? The reason quite obviously is that they don't want
>> to mess with success, they don't want to rock the boat, they don't want
>> to alienate their core audience. And I think we all have a pretty good
>> idea what that core audience is...
>
> Yeah, they don't want to mess with success - if anyone else wants to play, they
> will need to find a way to fit the bill. That's pretty simple. Has WSB done anything
> overt to get BMW (for instance) into their racing? Not that I can recall. BMW has
> made a progression in their bikes to where they have one that they think will
> compete, which is why they're going to be out next year. This kind of thing happens
> in many series that involve production vehicles.
BMW hasn't had a bike remotely capable of racing in WSB, which, unlike
Nascar, IS a production-based series. So what has WSB done? Well, they
played favorites in their rules that allowed Ducati to win races and
countless championships and turned it essentially into an all-twins
championship by 2000, which it remained for the next five years, while
the Flamminis got a clue that it wasn't quite turning out as planned. So
why would they do that? Might they had been playing to their core audience?
> I wouldn't be so quick to try to paint the core of NASCAR fans as racists.
What I am saying is Nascar likely has a greater degree of white racial
bias in its fan base than most other major spectator sports, and that
Nascar is aware of that and how it has worked to their advantage in the
past. I live on the edge of Oakland and Berkeley, and I gotta tell ya I
don't see too many #3 or #24 decals on cars or trucks around here. But I
get out in the central valley and stop at a Wal-Mart and that changes a
bit. It seems like Nascar has been making a lot of effort to sell the
notion that its fans are just a cross-section of America, and why would
that be, what are they running away from?
Yeah,
> it started in the south - you seem to think that everyone in the south is a racist
Everyone? How is it that I seem to think that? What gives you that idea?
> and that is the only part of the country watching NASCAR.
Really, how do you figure?
As for racism, well, I'm
> going to leave that one alone, Mark.
Yes, of course, a person so morally superior as you would never talk
about such a base thing as racism, particularly when you are at the same
time, in a thinly-veiled manner, accusing someone else of being that,
and without any basis for it at all. Except that I'll actually talk
about it, that is. All of which pretty much sums up the essence of
political correctness, I guess...
Howard Kveck wrote:
> Mark N wrote:
>> Howard Kveck wrote:
>> My point is what it was originally, that there is an almost undeniable
>> racial aspect to the popularity of NASCAR, and that this can be seen in
>> the reaction to a Japanese manufacturer daring to come into the series.
>
> Undeniable? Really? Such as? As for the reaction to Toyota entering the scene,
> yeah, I don't deny there are some cretins who are going to get worked up over it for
> jingoistic and racial reasons. I doubt that is the majority reaction though, since
> the core of NASCAR fans is pretty much across the country and economic and racial
> lines.
While that perhaps is mostly true today, and I don't entirely buy into
the NASCAR-published demographics (which mostly seem to be used to sell
sponsorship and distance themselves from their past image), I do think
it's only been true fairly recently, at most a decade. And I think there
are aspects to the image of Nascar that have drawn some people in,
allowed them to become interested, that aren't entirely positive.
Depending on how you look at it, of course...
>> You and I both know NASCAR totally controls the spec of the cars allowed
>> into their series, and can change that to manipulate results whenever
>> they want. And it's no coincidence that they have effectively frozen the
>> rules based on '60s and '70s Detroit muscle cars, the cars that appeal
>> most to the mentality (and I use that term loosely, I suspect) of their
>> target audience.
>
> No, I think they set the spec of the car to be one that works for all of the
> competitors. You bet it's outdated but it works great for what they do. Do you really
> think the average NASCAR fan is sitting around stewing about the thought they might
> have the cars run independent suspension instead of truck arm, or overhead cams?
No, the fans of real racing, the fans interested in the equipment and
technology, are probably watching F1 or maybe Indy Car. You know, fans
like a large portion of motorcycle racing fans. But that doesn't have
anything at all to do with Nascar wanting to freeze their technology in
time.
>> But if NASCAR was truly open-minded and wanted to expand their
>> audience and appeal to the broader tastes in cars of people today, why
>> wouldn't they have tried to bring in non-domestic manufacturers and/or
>> update their formula? The reason quite obviously is that they don't want
>> to mess with success, they don't want to rock the boat, they don't want
>> to alienate their core audience. And I think we all have a pretty good
>> idea what that core audience is...
>
> Yeah, they don't want to mess with success - if anyone else wants to play, they
> will need to find a way to fit the bill. That's pretty simple. Has WSB done anything
> overt to get BMW (for instance) into their racing? Not that I can recall. BMW has
> made a progression in their bikes to where they have one that they think will
> compete, which is why they're going to be out next year. This kind of thing happens
> in many series that involve production vehicles.
BMW hasn't had a bike remotely capable of racing in WSB, which, unlike
Nascar, IS a production-based series. So what has WSB done? Well, they
played favorites in their rules that allowed Ducati to win races and
countless championships and turned it essentially into an all-twins
championship by 2000, which it remained for the next five years, while
the Flamminis got a clue that it wasn't quite turning out as planned. So
why would they do that? Might they had been playing to their core audience?
> I wouldn't be so quick to try to paint the core of NASCAR fans as racists.
What I am saying is Nascar likely has a greater degree of white racial
bias in its fan base than most other major spectator sports, and that
Nascar is aware of that and how it has worked to their advantage in the
past. I live on the edge of Oakland and Berkeley, and I gotta tell ya I
don't see too many #3 or #24 decals on cars or trucks around here. But I
get out in the central valley and stop at a Wal-Mart and that changes a
bit. It seems like Nascar has been making a lot of effort to sell the
notion that its fans are just a cross-section of America, and why would
that be, what are they running away from?
Yeah,
> it started in the south - you seem to think that everyone in the south is a racist
Everyone? How is it that I seem to think that? What gives you that idea?
> and that is the only part of the country watching NASCAR.
Really, how do you figure?
As for racism, well, I'm
> going to leave that one alone, Mark.
Yes, of course, a person so morally superior as you would never talk
about such a base thing as racism, particularly when you are at the same
time, in a thinly-veiled manner, accusing someone else of being that,
and without any basis for it at all. Except that I'll actually talk
about it, that is. All of which pretty much sums up the essence of
political correctness, I guess...
Re: And away we go!
On 2008-04-23 03:25:21 -0400, Mark N <menusbaum@NYETSPAMearthlink,net > said:
> Howard Kveck wrote:
>> Mark N wrote:
>>> Howard Kveck wrote:
>>> My point is what it was originally, that there is an almost undeniable
>>> racial aspect to the popularity of NASCAR, and that this can be seen in
>>> the reaction to a Japanese manufacturer daring to come into the series.
>>
>> Undeniable? Really? Such as? As for the reaction to Toyota entering
>> the scene, yeah, I don't deny there are some cretins who are going to
>> get worked up over it for jingoistic and racial reasons. I doubt that
>> is the majority reaction though, since the core of NASCAR fans is
>> pretty much across the country and economic and racial lines.
>
> While that perhaps is mostly true today, and I don't entirely buy into
> the NASCAR-published demographics (which mostly seem to be used to sell
> sponsorship and distance themselves from their past image), I do think
> it's only been true fairly recently, at most a decade. And I think
> there are aspects to the image of Nascar that have drawn some people
> in, allowed them to become interested, that aren't entirely positive.
> Depending on how you look at it, of course...
So, you think M/C racing hasn't had it's "undesirables"? For instance,
ever heard of the HA Drag race team?
>
>>> You and I both know NASCAR totally controls the spec of the cars
>>> allowed into their series, and can change that to manipulate results
>>> whenever they want. And it's no coincidence that they have effectively
>>> frozen the rules based on '60s and '70s Detroit muscle cars, the cars
>>> that appeal most to the mentality (and I use that term loosely, I
>>> suspect) of their target audience.
>>
>> No, I think they set the spec of the car to be one that works for
>> all of the competitors. You bet it's outdated but it works great for
>> what they do. Do you really think the average NASCAR fan is sitting
>> around stewing about the thought they might have the cars run
>> independent suspension instead of truck arm, or overhead cams?
>
> No, the fans of real racing, the fans interested in the equipment and
> technology, are probably watching F1 or maybe Indy Car. You know, fans
> like a large portion of motorcycle racing fans. But that doesn't have
> anything at all to do with Nascar wanting to freeze their technology in
> time.
You see right there is where your argument gets weak and most likely
where a lot your grief about DMG comes from and TBH if I didn't know
better I'd probably agree with you, but the OEM's changed bike racing
from R&D to advertising quite a while back, even before the advent of
MGP. Sure, it use to be a testing, or a proving ground for their latest
and greatest, but today it's really nothing more than a vehicle to sell
their stuff and if you don't think so, then perhaps you need to think
again. Oh, and by the way DMG had absolutely nothing to do with that
either, however, they do seem to be taking it to a new level, but you
know what? It's theirs to do so..
>
>>> But if NASCAR was truly open-minded and wanted to expand their audience
>>> and appeal to the broader tastes in cars of people today, why wouldn't
>>> they have tried to bring in non-domestic manufacturers and/or update
>>> their formula? The reason quite obviously is that they don't want to
>>> mess with success, they don't want to rock the boat, they don't want to
>>> alienate their core audience. And I think we all have a pretty good
>>> idea what that core audience is...
>>
>> Yeah, they don't want to mess with success - if anyone else wants to
>> play, they will need to find a way to fit the bill. That's pretty
>> simple. Has WSB done anything overt to get BMW (for instance) into
>> their racing? Not that I can recall. BMW has made a progression in
>> their bikes to where they have one that they think will compete, which
>> is why they're going to be out next year. This kind of thing happens in
>> many series that involve production vehicles.
>
> BMW hasn't had a bike remotely capable of racing in WSB, which, unlike
> Nascar, IS a production-based series. So what has WSB done? Well, they
> played favorites in their rules that allowed Ducati to win races and
> countless championships and turned it essentially into an all-twins
> championship by 2000, which it remained for the next five years, while
> the Flamminis got a clue that it wasn't quite turning out as planned.
> So why would they do that? Might they had been playing to their core
> audience?
Really? I heard they do Mark, I seem to remember reading somewhere
they're gonna jump in with both feet next year with a 1000cc inline(I
think) four..
>
>> I wouldn't be so quick to try to paint the core of NASCAR fans as racists.
>
> What I am saying is Nascar likely has a greater degree of white racial
> bias in its fan base than most other major spectator sports, and that
> Nascar is aware of that and how it has worked to their advantage in the
> past. I live on the edge of Oakland and Berkeley, and I gotta tell ya I
> don't see too many #3 or #24 decals on cars or trucks around here. But
> I get out in the central valley and stop at a Wal-Mart and that changes
> a bit. It seems like Nascar has been making a lot of effort to sell the
> notion that its fans are just a cross-section of America, and why would
> that be, what are they running away from?
You may be saying that, but to me it looks like your standing in a
glass house with a loaded sling-shot. This whole fuckin' country was
built on racism and damn near every part of it still has some to one
degree, or another and it has little to do with class, color, money or
geographical location either. I can remember white only bathrooms and
not just in the south either, in fact, most of the hard core racism, or
bigotry I've ever seen happened up north! So, maybe you need to
re-think that as well..
>
> Yeah,
>> it started in the south - you seem to think that everyone in the south
>> is a racist
>
> Everyone? How is it that I seem to think that? What gives you that idea?
>
>> and that is the only part of the country watching NASCAR.
>
> Really, how do you figure?
>
> As for racism, well, I'm
>> going to leave that one alone, Mark.
>
> Yes, of course, a person so morally superior as you would never talk
> about such a base thing as racism, particularly when you are at the
> same time, in a thinly-veiled manner, accusing someone else of being
> that, and without any basis for it at all. Except that I'll actually
> talk about it, that is. All of which pretty much sums up the essence of
> political correctness, I guess...
There you go again, Howard chose not to pursue what he thought might
incite, or resurrect your past statements and instead of just letting
it slide you chose to dump on him. (batshitivness?;-) Now, I'm all
about political UNcorrectness as I think it's just so much bullshit,
however, you've crossed waay over that line more than a few times. I
dunno, maybe it's where you live, or something, but in most places you
can't, or won't talk shit like you have and expect to live a full, or
intact life, 'cause somebody will knock your shit in the dust. Racism
is still alive, of that there's little doubt, but it's nothing like
what it was just a generation ago and yes, I'm sure your right saying
there's racist in Nascar, but there's racism and bigotry damn near
everywhere to some extent, or another, so what's your point?
On 2008-04-23 03:25:21 -0400, Mark N <menusbaum@NYETSPAMearthlink,net > said:
> Howard Kveck wrote:
>> Mark N wrote:
>>> Howard Kveck wrote:
>>> My point is what it was originally, that there is an almost undeniable
>>> racial aspect to the popularity of NASCAR, and that this can be seen in
>>> the reaction to a Japanese manufacturer daring to come into the series.
>>
>> Undeniable? Really? Such as? As for the reaction to Toyota entering
>> the scene, yeah, I don't deny there are some cretins who are going to
>> get worked up over it for jingoistic and racial reasons. I doubt that
>> is the majority reaction though, since the core of NASCAR fans is
>> pretty much across the country and economic and racial lines.
>
> While that perhaps is mostly true today, and I don't entirely buy into
> the NASCAR-published demographics (which mostly seem to be used to sell
> sponsorship and distance themselves from their past image), I do think
> it's only been true fairly recently, at most a decade. And I think
> there are aspects to the image of Nascar that have drawn some people
> in, allowed them to become interested, that aren't entirely positive.
> Depending on how you look at it, of course...
So, you think M/C racing hasn't had it's "undesirables"? For instance,
ever heard of the HA Drag race team?
>
>>> You and I both know NASCAR totally controls the spec of the cars
>>> allowed into their series, and can change that to manipulate results
>>> whenever they want. And it's no coincidence that they have effectively
>>> frozen the rules based on '60s and '70s Detroit muscle cars, the cars
>>> that appeal most to the mentality (and I use that term loosely, I
>>> suspect) of their target audience.
>>
>> No, I think they set the spec of the car to be one that works for
>> all of the competitors. You bet it's outdated but it works great for
>> what they do. Do you really think the average NASCAR fan is sitting
>> around stewing about the thought they might have the cars run
>> independent suspension instead of truck arm, or overhead cams?
>
> No, the fans of real racing, the fans interested in the equipment and
> technology, are probably watching F1 or maybe Indy Car. You know, fans
> like a large portion of motorcycle racing fans. But that doesn't have
> anything at all to do with Nascar wanting to freeze their technology in
> time.
You see right there is where your argument gets weak and most likely
where a lot your grief about DMG comes from and TBH if I didn't know
better I'd probably agree with you, but the OEM's changed bike racing
from R&D to advertising quite a while back, even before the advent of
MGP. Sure, it use to be a testing, or a proving ground for their latest
and greatest, but today it's really nothing more than a vehicle to sell
their stuff and if you don't think so, then perhaps you need to think
again. Oh, and by the way DMG had absolutely nothing to do with that
either, however, they do seem to be taking it to a new level, but you
know what? It's theirs to do so..
>
>>> But if NASCAR was truly open-minded and wanted to expand their audience
>>> and appeal to the broader tastes in cars of people today, why wouldn't
>>> they have tried to bring in non-domestic manufacturers and/or update
>>> their formula? The reason quite obviously is that they don't want to
>>> mess with success, they don't want to rock the boat, they don't want to
>>> alienate their core audience. And I think we all have a pretty good
>>> idea what that core audience is...
>>
>> Yeah, they don't want to mess with success - if anyone else wants to
>> play, they will need to find a way to fit the bill. That's pretty
>> simple. Has WSB done anything overt to get BMW (for instance) into
>> their racing? Not that I can recall. BMW has made a progression in
>> their bikes to where they have one that they think will compete, which
>> is why they're going to be out next year. This kind of thing happens in
>> many series that involve production vehicles.
>
> BMW hasn't had a bike remotely capable of racing in WSB, which, unlike
> Nascar, IS a production-based series. So what has WSB done? Well, they
> played favorites in their rules that allowed Ducati to win races and
> countless championships and turned it essentially into an all-twins
> championship by 2000, which it remained for the next five years, while
> the Flamminis got a clue that it wasn't quite turning out as planned.
> So why would they do that? Might they had been playing to their core
> audience?
Really? I heard they do Mark, I seem to remember reading somewhere
they're gonna jump in with both feet next year with a 1000cc inline(I
think) four..
>
>> I wouldn't be so quick to try to paint the core of NASCAR fans as racists.
>
> What I am saying is Nascar likely has a greater degree of white racial
> bias in its fan base than most other major spectator sports, and that
> Nascar is aware of that and how it has worked to their advantage in the
> past. I live on the edge of Oakland and Berkeley, and I gotta tell ya I
> don't see too many #3 or #24 decals on cars or trucks around here. But
> I get out in the central valley and stop at a Wal-Mart and that changes
> a bit. It seems like Nascar has been making a lot of effort to sell the
> notion that its fans are just a cross-section of America, and why would
> that be, what are they running away from?
You may be saying that, but to me it looks like your standing in a
glass house with a loaded sling-shot. This whole fuckin' country was
built on racism and damn near every part of it still has some to one
degree, or another and it has little to do with class, color, money or
geographical location either. I can remember white only bathrooms and
not just in the south either, in fact, most of the hard core racism, or
bigotry I've ever seen happened up north! So, maybe you need to
re-think that as well..
>
> Yeah,
>> it started in the south - you seem to think that everyone in the south
>> is a racist
>
> Everyone? How is it that I seem to think that? What gives you that idea?
>
>> and that is the only part of the country watching NASCAR.
>
> Really, how do you figure?
>
> As for racism, well, I'm
>> going to leave that one alone, Mark.
>
> Yes, of course, a person so morally superior as you would never talk
> about such a base thing as racism, particularly when you are at the
> same time, in a thinly-veiled manner, accusing someone else of being
> that, and without any basis for it at all. Except that I'll actually
> talk about it, that is. All of which pretty much sums up the essence of
> political correctness, I guess...
There you go again, Howard chose not to pursue what he thought might
incite, or resurrect your past statements and instead of just letting
it slide you chose to dump on him. (batshitivness?;-) Now, I'm all
about political UNcorrectness as I think it's just so much bullshit,
however, you've crossed waay over that line more than a few times. I
dunno, maybe it's where you live, or something, but in most places you
can't, or won't talk shit like you have and expect to live a full, or
intact life, 'cause somebody will knock your shit in the dust. Racism
is still alive, of that there's little doubt, but it's nothing like
what it was just a generation ago and yes, I'm sure your right saying
there's racist in Nascar, but there's racism and bigotry damn near
everywhere to some extent, or another, so what's your point?
Re: And away we go!
T3 wrote:
> You see right there is where your argument gets weak and most likely
> where a lot your grief about DMG comes from and TBH if I didn't know
> better I'd probably agree with you, but the OEM's changed bike racing
> from R&D to advertising quite a while back, even before the advent of
> MGP. Sure, it use to be a testing, or a proving ground for their latest
> and greatest, but today it's really nothing more than a vehicle to sell
> their stuff and if you don't think so, then perhaps you need to think
> again.
so you are saying the the current race reps are no different
than they were 20 years ago? 10 years ago?
Bruce
T3 wrote:
> You see right there is where your argument gets weak and most likely
> where a lot your grief about DMG comes from and TBH if I didn't know
> better I'd probably agree with you, but the OEM's changed bike racing
> from R&D to advertising quite a while back, even before the advent of
> MGP. Sure, it use to be a testing, or a proving ground for their latest
> and greatest, but today it's really nothing more than a vehicle to sell
> their stuff and if you don't think so, then perhaps you need to think
> again.
so you are saying the the current race reps are no different
than they were 20 years ago? 10 years ago?
Bruce
Re: And away we go!
On 2008-04-23 14:09:11 -0400, Bruce Hartweg <bruce-news@hartweg.us> said:
> T3 wrote:
>
>> You see right there is where your argument gets weak and most likely
>> where a lot your grief about DMG comes from and TBH if I didn't know
>> better I'd probably agree with you, but the OEM's changed bike racing
>> from R&D to advertising quite a while back, even before the advent of
>> MGP. Sure, it use to be a testing, or a proving ground for their latest
>> and greatest, but today it's really nothing more than a vehicle to sell
>> their stuff and if you don't think so, then perhaps you need to think
>> again.
>
> so you are saying the the current race reps are no different
> than they were 20 years ago? 10 years ago?
>
> Bruce
I'm saying beyond MGP there isn't any street bike development going on
at the track these days, they prove and test before they get there and
they race to show their wares and little else. Yes, back in the day if
they found, say, a head that ran too hot, or a cam too weak at the
track they would change it for the street, but that was then and this
is now. Understand I'm not making a judgement here, I'm just pointing
out what might be Mark's hang-up, err, one of them anyway..
On 2008-04-23 14:09:11 -0400, Bruce Hartweg <bruce-news@hartweg.us> said:
> T3 wrote:
>
>> You see right there is where your argument gets weak and most likely
>> where a lot your grief about DMG comes from and TBH if I didn't know
>> better I'd probably agree with you, but the OEM's changed bike racing
>> from R&D to advertising quite a while back, even before the advent of
>> MGP. Sure, it use to be a testing, or a proving ground for their latest
>> and greatest, but today it's really nothing more than a vehicle to sell
>> their stuff and if you don't think so, then perhaps you need to think
>> again.
>
> so you are saying the the current race reps are no different
> than they were 20 years ago? 10 years ago?
>
> Bruce
I'm saying beyond MGP there isn't any street bike development going on
at the track these days, they prove and test before they get there and
they race to show their wares and little else. Yes, back in the day if
they found, say, a head that ran too hot, or a cam too weak at the
track they would change it for the street, but that was then and this
is now. Understand I'm not making a judgement here, I'm just pointing
out what might be Mark's hang-up, err, one of them anyway..
Re: And away we go!
T3 wrote:
> On 2008-04-23 14:09:11 -0400, Bruce Hartweg <bruce-news@hartweg.us> said:
>
>> T3 wrote:
>>
>>> You see right there is where your argument gets weak and most likely
>>> where a lot your grief about DMG comes from and TBH if I didn't know
>>> better I'd probably agree with you, but the OEM's changed bike racing
>>> from R&D to advertising quite a while back, even before the advent of
>>> MGP. Sure, it use to be a testing, or a proving ground for their
>>> latest and greatest, but today it's really nothing more than a
>>> vehicle to sell their stuff and if you don't think so, then perhaps
>>> you need to think again.
>>
>> so you are saying the the current race reps are no different
>> than they were 20 years ago? 10 years ago?
>>
>> Bruce
>
> I'm saying beyond MGP there isn't any street bike development going on
> at the track these days, they prove and test before they get there and
> they race to show their wares and little else. Yes, back in the day if
> they found, say, a head that ran too hot, or a cam too weak at the track
> they would change it for the street, but that was then and this is now.
> Understand I'm not making a judgement here, I'm just pointing out what
> might be Mark's hang-up, err, one of them anyway..
>
No there production based racing, so you have it backwards. To do better
in racing they have to develop the street bike to be better. In some
watered down spec HP, spec weight, spec tire, spec fuel class there is
no incentive to make a better street bike (lighter, more powerful, etc)
because it won't help them win races. Look at Honda and the 600s they won
in FX (with Miggy/Jake, then Josh) because they could mod the hell out
of it, but in SSport it wasn't a factor, until they debuted the new RR
last year and Josh almost (and should have) won the championship. If the
DSB class is so straightjacketed in rules that my 99 F4 is against the caps
what is the point of making a better bike to start with?
Bruce
T3 wrote:
> On 2008-04-23 14:09:11 -0400, Bruce Hartweg <bruce-news@hartweg.us> said:
>
>> T3 wrote:
>>
>>> You see right there is where your argument gets weak and most likely
>>> where a lot your grief about DMG comes from and TBH if I didn't know
>>> better I'd probably agree with you, but the OEM's changed bike racing
>>> from R&D to advertising quite a while back, even before the advent of
>>> MGP. Sure, it use to be a testing, or a proving ground for their
>>> latest and greatest, but today it's really nothing more than a
>>> vehicle to sell their stuff and if you don't think so, then perhaps
>>> you need to think again.
>>
>> so you are saying the the current race reps are no different
>> than they were 20 years ago? 10 years ago?
>>
>> Bruce
>
> I'm saying beyond MGP there isn't any street bike development going on
> at the track these days, they prove and test before they get there and
> they race to show their wares and little else. Yes, back in the day if
> they found, say, a head that ran too hot, or a cam too weak at the track
> they would change it for the street, but that was then and this is now.
> Understand I'm not making a judgement here, I'm just pointing out what
> might be Mark's hang-up, err, one of them anyway..
>
No there production based racing, so you have it backwards. To do better
in racing they have to develop the street bike to be better. In some
watered down spec HP, spec weight, spec tire, spec fuel class there is
no incentive to make a better street bike (lighter, more powerful, etc)
because it won't help them win races. Look at Honda and the 600s they won
in FX (with Miggy/Jake, then Josh) because they could mod the hell out
of it, but in SSport it wasn't a factor, until they debuted the new RR
last year and Josh almost (and should have) won the championship. If the
DSB class is so straightjacketed in rules that my 99 F4 is against the caps
what is the point of making a better bike to start with?
Bruce
Re: And away we go!
Bruce Hartweg wrote:
> T3 wrote:
> > Bruce Hartweg said:
> >> T3 wrote:
> >>> You see right there is where your argument gets weak and most likely
> >>> where a lot your grief about DMG comes from and TBH if I didn't know
> >>> better I'd probably agree with you, but the OEM's changed bike racing
> >>> from R&D to advertising quite a while back, even before the advent of
> >>> MGP. Sure, it use to be a testing, or a proving ground for their
> >>> latest and greatest, but today it's really nothing more than a
> >>> vehicle to sell their stuff and if you don't think so, then perhaps
> >>> you need to think again.
>
> >> so you are saying the the current race reps are no different
> >> than they were 20 years ago? 10 years ago?
>
> > I'm saying beyond MGP there isn't any street bike development going on
> > at the track these days, they prove and test before they get there and
> > they race to show their wares and little else. Yes, back in the day if
> > they found, say, a head that ran too hot, or a cam too weak at the track
> > they would change it for the street, but that was then and this is now.
> > Understand I'm not making a judgement here, I'm just pointing out what
> > might be Mark's hang-up, err, one of them anyway..
>
> No there production based racing, so you have it backwards. To do better
> in racing they have to develop the street bike to be better. In some
> watered down spec HP, spec weight, spec tire, spec fuel class there is
> no incentive to make a better street bike (lighter, more powerful, etc)
> because it won't help them win races. Look at Honda and the 600s they won
> in FX (with Miggy/Jake, then Josh) because they could mod the hell out
> of it, but in SSport it wasn't a factor, until they debuted the new RR
> last year and Josh almost (and should have) won the championship. If the
> DSB class is so straightjacketed in rules that my 99 F4 is against the caps
> what is the point of making a better bike to start with?
I think you're absolutely right, there is huge sportbike development
going on at the track, every new model incorporates changes that make
the bikes faster and better on the track. One of the reasons the GSX-
R1000 is so good, so successful on the track is their consistency in
racing it, in particular in AMA SB with Mladin & team's feedback. But
the bikes are good enough now that they really han't make giant leaps
any longer, it's really just more refinement.
The one positive I can see regarding a horsepower cap in DSB is it may
stop the factories from being so peak-focused and instead will focus
on powerband and tractable power, which would be an improvement on the
street. On the other hand, weight minimums will likely move their
focus off of making the bikes lighter, which has benfits on the
street. But in the end they have to be able to be racing each other
for wins and championships and not playing second-fiddle to some Euro
twin favored under the rules - they will bail if they don't have a
realistic shot at winning, and that's probably the thing I'm most
concerned about regarding NASBike and DSB.
Bruce Hartweg wrote:
> T3 wrote:
> > Bruce Hartweg said:
> >> T3 wrote:
> >>> You see right there is where your argument gets weak and most likely
> >>> where a lot your grief about DMG comes from and TBH if I didn't know
> >>> better I'd probably agree with you, but the OEM's changed bike racing
> >>> from R&D to advertising quite a while back, even before the advent of
> >>> MGP. Sure, it use to be a testing, or a proving ground for their
> >>> latest and greatest, but today it's really nothing more than a
> >>> vehicle to sell their stuff and if you don't think so, then perhaps
> >>> you need to think again.
>
> >> so you are saying the the current race reps are no different
> >> than they were 20 years ago? 10 years ago?
>
> > I'm saying beyond MGP there isn't any street bike development going on
> > at the track these days, they prove and test before they get there and
> > they race to show their wares and little else. Yes, back in the day if
> > they found, say, a head that ran too hot, or a cam too weak at the track
> > they would change it for the street, but that was then and this is now.
> > Understand I'm not making a judgement here, I'm just pointing out what
> > might be Mark's hang-up, err, one of them anyway..
>
> No there production based racing, so you have it backwards. To do better
> in racing they have to develop the street bike to be better. In some
> watered down spec HP, spec weight, spec tire, spec fuel class there is
> no incentive to make a better street bike (lighter, more powerful, etc)
> because it won't help them win races. Look at Honda and the 600s they won
> in FX (with Miggy/Jake, then Josh) because they could mod the hell out
> of it, but in SSport it wasn't a factor, until they debuted the new RR
> last year and Josh almost (and should have) won the championship. If the
> DSB class is so straightjacketed in rules that my 99 F4 is against the caps
> what is the point of making a better bike to start with?
I think you're absolutely right, there is huge sportbike development
going on at the track, every new model incorporates changes that make
the bikes faster and better on the track. One of the reasons the GSX-
R1000 is so good, so successful on the track is their consistency in
racing it, in particular in AMA SB with Mladin & team's feedback. But
the bikes are good enough now that they really han't make giant leaps
any longer, it's really just more refinement.
The one positive I can see regarding a horsepower cap in DSB is it may
stop the factories from being so peak-focused and instead will focus
on powerband and tractable power, which would be an improvement on the
street. On the other hand, weight minimums will likely move their
focus off of making the bikes lighter, which has benfits on the
street. But in the end they have to be able to be racing each other
for wins and championships and not playing second-fiddle to some Euro
twin favored under the rules - they will bail if they don't have a
realistic shot at winning, and that's probably the thing I'm most
concerned about regarding NASBike and DSB.
Re: And away we go!
On 2008-04-23 15:25:50 -0400, Bruce Hartweg <bruce-news@hartweg.us> said:
> T3 wrote:
>> On 2008-04-23 14:09:11 -0400, Bruce Hartweg <bruce-news@hartweg.us> said:
>>
>>> T3 wrote:
>>>
>>>> You see right there is where your argument gets weak and most likely
>>>> where a lot your grief about DMG comes from and TBH if I didn't know
>>>> better I'd probably agree with you, but the OEM's changed bike racing
>>>> from R&D to advertising quite a while back, even before the advent of
>>>> MGP. Sure, it use to be a testing, or a proving ground for their latest
>>>> and greatest, but today it's really nothing more than a vehicle to sell
>>>> their stuff and if you don't think so, then perhaps you need to think
>>>> again.
>>>
>>> so you are saying the the current race reps are no different
>>> than they were 20 years ago? 10 years ago?
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>
>> I'm saying beyond MGP there isn't any street bike development going on
>> at the track these days, they prove and test before they get there and
>> they race to show their wares and little else. Yes, back in the day if
>> they found, say, a head that ran too hot, or a cam too weak at the
>> track they would change it for the street, but that was then and this
>> is now. Understand I'm not making a judgement here, I'm just pointing
>> out what might be Mark's hang-up, err, one of them anyway..
>>
>
> No there production based racing, so you have it backwards. To do better
> in racing they have to develop the street bike to be better. In some
> watered down spec HP, spec weight, spec tire, spec fuel class there is
> no incentive to make a better street bike (lighter, more powerful, etc)
> because it won't help them win races. Look at Honda and the 600s they won
> in FX (with Miggy/Jake, then Josh) because they could mod the hell out
> of it, but in SSport it wasn't a factor, until they debuted the new RR
> last year and Josh almost (and should have) won the championship. If the
> DSB class is so straightjacketed in rules that my 99 F4 is against the caps
> what is the point of making a better bike to start with?
>
> Bruce
Semantics I guess, so I'll try again. There's no development at the
track per se, of course they try build stuff to best their rival's, but
what happens *at the track* is *advertising*, not *development*. Racing
for sure shows what everybody has, but there's no actual development
there anymore, that falls to their R&D riders back at the factory.
Which, as you might have guessed, is why I say the OEM's have a big
head start before the 1st green flag drops, as they not only built it,
they've race tested it too. They already know what parts might be too
weak to race, or how to tweak the FI map, or whatever, but Joe Blow has
to find out for himself once he gets the bike and when you couple their
built-in advantage with a high dollar rider you get exactly what we see
in SB, follow me? Now, if it's accurate that the direction is back to a
more sstock deal that may help a little, but not as much as some might
want you to believe and don't get me wrong, I have nothing against any
factory, but you shouldn't discount their edge...
On 2008-04-23 15:25:50 -0400, Bruce Hartweg <bruce-news@hartweg.us> said:
> T3 wrote:
>> On 2008-04-23 14:09:11 -0400, Bruce Hartweg <bruce-news@hartweg.us> said:
>>
>>> T3 wrote:
>>>
>>>> You see right there is where your argument gets weak and most likely
>>>> where a lot your grief about DMG comes from and TBH if I didn't know
>>>> better I'd probably agree with you, but the OEM's changed bike racing
>>>> from R&D to advertising quite a while back, even before the advent of
>>>> MGP. Sure, it use to be a testing, or a proving ground for their latest
>>>> and greatest, but today it's really nothing more than a vehicle to sell
>>>> their stuff and if you don't think so, then perhaps you need to think
>>>> again.
>>>
>>> so you are saying the the current race reps are no different
>>> than they were 20 years ago? 10 years ago?
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>
>> I'm saying beyond MGP there isn't any street bike development going on
>> at the track these days, they prove and test before they get there and
>> they race to show their wares and little else. Yes, back in the day if
>> they found, say, a head that ran too hot, or a cam too weak at the
>> track they would change it for the street, but that was then and this
>> is now. Understand I'm not making a judgement here, I'm just pointing
>> out what might be Mark's hang-up, err, one of them anyway..
>>
>
> No there production based racing, so you have it backwards. To do better
> in racing they have to develop the street bike to be better. In some
> watered down spec HP, spec weight, spec tire, spec fuel class there is
> no incentive to make a better street bike (lighter, more powerful, etc)
> because it won't help them win races. Look at Honda and the 600s they won
> in FX (with Miggy/Jake, then Josh) because they could mod the hell out
> of it, but in SSport it wasn't a factor, until they debuted the new RR
> last year and Josh almost (and should have) won the championship. If the
> DSB class is so straightjacketed in rules that my 99 F4 is against the caps
> what is the point of making a better bike to start with?
>
> Bruce
Semantics I guess, so I'll try again. There's no development at the
track per se, of course they try build stuff to best their rival's, but
what happens *at the track* is *advertising*, not *development*. Racing
for sure shows what everybody has, but there's no actual development
there anymore, that falls to their R&D riders back at the factory.
Which, as you might have guessed, is why I say the OEM's have a big
head start before the 1st green flag drops, as they not only built it,
they've race tested it too. They already know what parts might be too
weak to race, or how to tweak the FI map, or whatever, but Joe Blow has
to find out for himself once he gets the bike and when you couple their
built-in advantage with a high dollar rider you get exactly what we see
in SB, follow me? Now, if it's accurate that the direction is back to a
more sstock deal that may help a little, but not as much as some might
want you to believe and don't get me wrong, I have nothing against any
factory, but you shouldn't discount their edge...
Re: And away we go!
T3 wrote:
> On 2008-04-23 15:25:50 -0400, Bruce Hartweg <bruce-news@hartweg.us> said:
>
>> T3 wrote:
>>> On 2008-04-23 14:09:11 -0400, Bruce Hartweg <bruce-news@hartweg.us>
>>> said:
>>>
>>>> T3 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You see right there is where your argument gets weak and most
>>>>> likely where a lot your grief about DMG comes from and TBH if I
>>>>> didn't know better I'd probably agree with you, but the OEM's
>>>>> changed bike racing from R&D to advertising quite a while back,
>>>>> even before the advent of MGP. Sure, it use to be a testing, or a
>>>>> proving ground for their latest and greatest, but today it's really
>>>>> nothing more than a vehicle to sell their stuff and if you don't
>>>>> think so, then perhaps you need to think again.
>>>>
>>>> so you are saying the the current race reps are no different
>>>> than they were 20 years ago? 10 years ago?
>>>>
>>>> Bruce
>>>
>>> I'm saying beyond MGP there isn't any street bike development going
>>> on at the track these days, they prove and test before they get there
>>> and they race to show their wares and little else. Yes, back in the
>>> day if they found, say, a head that ran too hot, or a cam too weak at
>>> the track they would change it for the street, but that was then and
>>> this is now. Understand I'm not making a judgement here, I'm just
>>> pointing out what might be Mark's hang-up, err, one of them anyway..
>>>
>>
>> No there production based racing, so you have it backwards. To do better
>> in racing they have to develop the street bike to be better. In some
>> watered down spec HP, spec weight, spec tire, spec fuel class there is
>> no incentive to make a better street bike (lighter, more powerful, etc)
>> because it won't help them win races. Look at Honda and the 600s they won
>> in FX (with Miggy/Jake, then Josh) because they could mod the hell out
>> of it, but in SSport it wasn't a factor, until they debuted the new RR
>> last year and Josh almost (and should have) won the championship. If the
>> DSB class is so straightjacketed in rules that my 99 F4 is against the
>> caps
>> what is the point of making a better bike to start with?
>>
>> Bruce
>
> Semantics I guess, so I'll try again. There's no development at the
> track per se, of course they try build stuff to best their rival's, but
> what happens *at the track* is *advertising*, not *development*. Racing
> for sure shows what everybody has, but there's no actual development
> there anymore, that falls to their R&D riders back at the factory.
But the *advertising* is by winning. And to win they develop the bike to be better.
But if the dumbing/limiting/spec class damps down too much, then there is no point
in developing a better bike, because a better bike won't be allowed to race.
So development halts.
Look at it another way, NASCAR cars provide zero input into improving any new factory
car. No new feature in any auto today has any relevance to the racing and vice versa.
I'd really not like to see that happen to bike racing.
Bruce
T3 wrote:
> On 2008-04-23 15:25:50 -0400, Bruce Hartweg <bruce-news@hartweg.us> said:
>
>> T3 wrote:
>>> On 2008-04-23 14:09:11 -0400, Bruce Hartweg <bruce-news@hartweg.us>
>>> said:
>>>
>>>> T3 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You see right there is where your argument gets weak and most
>>>>> likely where a lot your grief about DMG comes from and TBH if I
>>>>> didn't know better I'd probably agree with you, but the OEM's
>>>>> changed bike racing from R&D to advertising quite a while back,
>>>>> even before the advent of MGP. Sure, it use to be a testing, or a
>>>>> proving ground for their latest and greatest, but today it's really
>>>>> nothing more than a vehicle to sell their stuff and if you don't
>>>>> think so, then perhaps you need to think again.
>>>>
>>>> so you are saying the the current race reps are no different
>>>> than they were 20 years ago? 10 years ago?
>>>>
>>>> Bruce
>>>
>>> I'm saying beyond MGP there isn't any street bike development going
>>> on at the track these days, they prove and test before they get there
>>> and they race to show their wares and little else. Yes, back in the
>>> day if they found, say, a head that ran too hot, or a cam too weak at
>>> the track they would change it for the street, but that was then and
>>> this is now. Understand I'm not making a judgement here, I'm just
>>> pointing out what might be Mark's hang-up, err, one of them anyway..
>>>
>>
>> No there production based racing, so you have it backwards. To do better
>> in racing they have to develop the street bike to be better. In some
>> watered down spec HP, spec weight, spec tire, spec fuel class there is
>> no incentive to make a better street bike (lighter, more powerful, etc)
>> because it won't help them win races. Look at Honda and the 600s they won
>> in FX (with Miggy/Jake, then Josh) because they could mod the hell out
>> of it, but in SSport it wasn't a factor, until they debuted the new RR
>> last year and Josh almost (and should have) won the championship. If the
>> DSB class is so straightjacketed in rules that my 99 F4 is against the
>> caps
>> what is the point of making a better bike to start with?
>>
>> Bruce
>
> Semantics I guess, so I'll try again. There's no development at the
> track per se, of course they try build stuff to best their rival's, but
> what happens *at the track* is *advertising*, not *development*. Racing
> for sure shows what everybody has, but there's no actual development
> there anymore, that falls to their R&D riders back at the factory.
But the *advertising* is by winning. And to win they develop the bike to be better.
But if the dumbing/limiting/spec class damps down too much, then there is no point
in developing a better bike, because a better bike won't be allowed to race.
So development halts.
Look at it another way, NASCAR cars provide zero input into improving any new factory
car. No new feature in any auto today has any relevance to the racing and vice versa.
I'd really not like to see that happen to bike racing.
Bruce
Re: And away we go!
Bruce Hartweg wrote:
> T3 wrote:
> > Semantics I guess, so I'll try again. There's no development at the
> > track per se, of course they try build stuff to best their rival's, but
> > what happens *at the track* is *advertising*, not *development*. Racing
> > for sure shows what everybody has, but there's no actual development
> > there anymore, that falls to their R&D riders back at the factory.
>
> But the *advertising* is by winning. And to win they develop the bike to be better.
> But if the dumbing/limiting/spec class damps down too much, then there is no point
> in developing a better bike, because a better bike won't be allowed to race.
> So development halts.
>
> Look at it another way, NASCAR cars provide zero input into improving any new factory
> car. No new feature in any auto today has any relevance to the racing and vice versa.
> I'd really not like to see that happen to bike racing.
I think what it comes down to is purely marketing then. Development on
the bikes will continue, because the OEMs race them elsewhere and
under rules that incentivize them to make the bikes better. But here
they are going to be racing only as a marketing tool, and that mostly
only helps them if they do well, although just flying the flag helps
some. So if the rules are set up in a fashion that favors non-fours,
then they won't be winning, or as much as they'd want. And if the
rules incentivize teams to run the non-fours, then they don't even
have customer bikes out there in numbers. They may still support some
teams to maintain visibility, but they won't spend a huge amount of
money on that.
So it probably comes down to what NASBike wants to do, how much they
really desire to minimize or eliminate the Japanese factories. If they
want to run a level series, meaning a given non-factory team with a
given rider could do equally well on just about any available brand,
then the Japanese will win and the factories will stay in it, even if
the R&D use of the series is lessened. If NASBike wants the factories
out, or even just wants to stop them from winning all the time, that
will happen. Then the question becomes, what's left?
Bruce Hartweg wrote:
> T3 wrote:
> > Semantics I guess, so I'll try again. There's no development at the
> > track per se, of course they try build stuff to best their rival's, but
> > what happens *at the track* is *advertising*, not *development*. Racing
> > for sure shows what everybody has, but there's no actual development
> > there anymore, that falls to their R&D riders back at the factory.
>
> But the *advertising* is by winning. And to win they develop the bike to be better.
> But if the dumbing/limiting/spec class damps down too much, then there is no point
> in developing a better bike, because a better bike won't be allowed to race.
> So development halts.
>
> Look at it another way, NASCAR cars provide zero input into improving any new factory
> car. No new feature in any auto today has any relevance to the racing and vice versa.
> I'd really not like to see that happen to bike racing.
I think what it comes down to is purely marketing then. Development on
the bikes will continue, because the OEMs race them elsewhere and
under rules that incentivize them to make the bikes better. But here
they are going to be racing only as a marketing tool, and that mostly
only helps them if they do well, although just flying the flag helps
some. So if the rules are set up in a fashion that favors non-fours,
then they won't be winning, or as much as they'd want. And if the
rules incentivize teams to run the non-fours, then they don't even
have customer bikes out there in numbers. They may still support some
teams to maintain visibility, but they won't spend a huge amount of
money on that.
So it probably comes down to what NASBike wants to do, how much they
really desire to minimize or eliminate the Japanese factories. If they
want to run a level series, meaning a given non-factory team with a
given rider could do equally well on just about any available brand,
then the Japanese will win and the factories will stay in it, even if
the R&D use of the series is lessened. If NASBike wants the factories
out, or even just wants to stop them from winning all the time, that
will happen. Then the question becomes, what's left?
Re: And away we go!
On 2008-04-23 19:32:38 -0400, Bruce Hartweg <doNOTuse@nowhere,com > said:
> T3 wrote:
>> On 2008-04-23 15:25:50 -0400, Bruce Hartweg <bruce-news@hartweg.us> said:
>>
>>> T3 wrote:
>>>> On 2008-04-23 14:09:11 -0400, Bruce Hartweg <bruce-news@hartweg.us> said:
>>>>
>>>>> T3 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You see right there is where your argument gets weak and most likely
>>>>>> where a lot your grief about DMG comes from and TBH if I didn't know
>>>>>> better I'd probably agree with you, but the OEM's changed bike racing
>>>>>> from R&D to advertising quite a while back, even before the advent of
>>>>>> MGP. Sure, it use to be a testing, or a proving ground for their latest
>>>>>> and greatest, but today it's really nothing more than a vehicle to sell
>>>>>> their stuff and if you don't think so, then perhaps you need to think
>>>>>> again.
>>>>>
>>>>> so you are saying the the current race reps are no different
>>>>> than they were 20 years ago? 10 years ago?
>>>>>
>>>>> Bruce
>>>>
>>>> I'm saying beyond MGP there isn't any street bike development going on
>>>> at the track these days, they prove and test before they get there and
>>>> they race to show their wares and little else. Yes, back in the day if
>>>> they found, say, a head that ran too hot, or a cam too weak at the
>>>> track they would change it for the street, but that was then and this
>>>> is now. Understand I'm not making a judgement here, I'm just pointing
>>>> out what might be Mark's hang-up, err, one of them anyway..
>>>>
>>>
>>> No there production based racing, so you have it backwards. To do better
>>> in racing they have to develop the street bike to be better. In some
>>> watered down spec HP, spec weight, spec tire, spec fuel class there is
>>> no incentive to make a better street bike (lighter, more powerful, etc)
>>> because it won't help them win races. Look at Honda and the 600s they won
>>> in FX (with Miggy/Jake, then Josh) because they could mod the hell out
>>> of it, but in SSport it wasn't a factor, until they debuted the new RR
>>> last year and Josh almost (and should have) won the championship. If the
>>> DSB class is so straightjacketed in rules that my 99 F4 is against the caps
>>> what is the point of making a better bike to start with?
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>
>> Semantics I guess, so I'll try again. There's no development at the
>> track per se, of course they try build stuff to best their rival's, but
>> what happens *at the track* is *advertising*, not *development*. Racing
>> for sure shows what everybody has, but there's no actual development
>> there anymore, that falls to their R&D riders back at the factory.
>
> But the *advertising* is by winning. And to win they develop the bike
> to be better.
Winning sells bikes, it's like the egg/chicken thing..
> But if the dumbing/limiting/spec class damps down too much, then there
> is no point
> in developing a better bike, because a better bike won't be allowed to race.
> So development halts.
C'mon you really think something like that is possible given the one-up
manship and cut-throat nature of new bike sales? Not a chance..
>
> Look at it another way, NASCAR cars provide zero input into improving
> any new factory
> car. No new feature in any auto today has any relevance to the racing
> and vice versa.
> I'd really not like to see that happen to bike racing.
>
> Bruce
Are you saying because the OEM's don't really race their stuff in
Nascar they don't improve? I hope not, because of course they've
improved and if they keep paying France and Co. they can run their
models too, but you know what? I think a lot of this Nascar does this
and that isn't going to crossover to the bikes, I see them moving more
in Grand Am's direction rather than Nascar, but we'll see...
On 2008-04-23 19:32:38 -0400, Bruce Hartweg <doNOTuse@nowhere,com > said:
> T3 wrote:
>> On 2008-04-23 15:25:50 -0400, Bruce Hartweg <bruce-news@hartweg.us> said:
>>
>>> T3 wrote:
>>>> On 2008-04-23 14:09:11 -0400, Bruce Hartweg <bruce-news@hartweg.us> said:
>>>>
>>>>> T3 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You see right there is where your argument gets weak and most likely
>>>>>> where a lot your grief about DMG comes from and TBH if I didn't know
>>>>>> better I'd probably agree with you, but the OEM's changed bike racing
>>>>>> from R&D to advertising quite a while back, even before the advent of
>>>>>> MGP. Sure, it use to be a testing, or a proving ground for their latest
>>>>>> and greatest, but today it's really nothing more than a vehicle to sell
>>>>>> their stuff and if you don't think so, then perhaps you need to think
>>>>>> again.
>>>>>
>>>>> so you are saying the the current race reps are no different
>>>>> than they were 20 years ago? 10 years ago?
>>>>>
>>>>> Bruce
>>>>
>>>> I'm saying beyond MGP there isn't any street bike development going on
>>>> at the track these days, they prove and test before they get there and
>>>> they race to show their wares and little else. Yes, back in the day if
>>>> they found, say, a head that ran too hot, or a cam too weak at the
>>>> track they would change it for the street, but that was then and this
>>>> is now. Understand I'm not making a judgement here, I'm just pointing
>>>> out what might be Mark's hang-up, err, one of them anyway..
>>>>
>>>
>>> No there production based racing, so you have it backwards. To do better
>>> in racing they have to develop the street bike to be better. In some
>>> watered down spec HP, spec weight, spec tire, spec fuel class there is
>>> no incentive to make a better street bike (lighter, more powerful, etc)
>>> because it won't help them win races. Look at Honda and the 600s they won
>>> in FX (with Miggy/Jake, then Josh) because they could mod the hell out
>>> of it, but in SSport it wasn't a factor, until they debuted the new RR
>>> last year and Josh almost (and should have) won the championship. If the
>>> DSB class is so straightjacketed in rules that my 99 F4 is against the caps
>>> what is the point of making a better bike to start with?
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>
>> Semantics I guess, so I'll try again. There's no development at the
>> track per se, of course they try build stuff to best their rival's, but
>> what happens *at the track* is *advertising*, not *development*. Racing
>> for sure shows what everybody has, but there's no actual development
>> there anymore, that falls to their R&D riders back at the factory.
>
> But the *advertising* is by winning. And to win they develop the bike
> to be better.
Winning sells bikes, it's like the egg/chicken thing..
> But if the dumbing/limiting/spec class damps down too much, then there
> is no point
> in developing a better bike, because a better bike won't be allowed to race.
> So development halts.
C'mon you really think something like that is possible given the one-up
manship and cut-throat nature of new bike sales? Not a chance..
>
> Look at it another way, NASCAR cars provide zero input into improving
> any new factory
> car. No new feature in any auto today has any relevance to the racing
> and vice versa.
> I'd really not like to see that happen to bike racing.
>
> Bruce
Are you saying because the OEM's don't really race their stuff in
Nascar they don't improve? I hope not, because of course they've
improved and if they keep paying France and Co. they can run their
models too, but you know what? I think a lot of this Nascar does this
and that isn't going to crossover to the bikes, I see them moving more
in Grand Am's direction rather than Nascar, but we'll see...
Re: And away we go!
T3 wrote:
>
> Are you saying because the OEM's don't really race their stuff in Nascar
> they don't improve? I hope not, because of course they've improved and
> if they keep paying France and Co. they can run their models too
No I'm saying Nascar doesn't have anything to do with the improvements
and I don't think winning in Nascar has much effect on car sales. Your
ford Nascar fans won't go by a chevy if that cars wins and vice
versa. Nascar has more advertising for non-automotive things than the
actual makers. That could be where the new bike racing goes - pure
entertainment and 2 wheeled billboards for soap and viagra. if that
happens it could be "successful" but the factories won't care. Right
now winning is advertising - later it might not matter.
> you know what? I think a lot of this Nascar does this and that isn't
> going to crossover to the bikes, I see them moving more in Grand Am's
> direction rather than Nascar, but we'll see...
>
funny you should say that - the DMG guys say the same thing...
< http :// superbikeplanet,com /2008/Apr/080423-dmg-view.htm>
Bruce
T3 wrote:
>
> Are you saying because the OEM's don't really race their stuff in Nascar
> they don't improve? I hope not, because of course they've improved and
> if they keep paying France and Co. they can run their models too
No I'm saying Nascar doesn't have anything to do with the improvements
and I don't think winning in Nascar has much effect on car sales. Your
ford Nascar fans won't go by a chevy if that cars wins and vice
versa. Nascar has more advertising for non-automotive things than the
actual makers. That could be where the new bike racing goes - pure
entertainment and 2 wheeled billboards for soap and viagra. if that
happens it could be "successful" but the factories won't care. Right
now winning is advertising - later it might not matter.
> you know what? I think a lot of this Nascar does this and that isn't
> going to crossover to the bikes, I see them moving more in Grand Am's
> direction rather than Nascar, but we'll see...
>
funny you should say that - the DMG guys say the same thing...
< http :// superbikeplanet,com /2008/Apr/080423-dmg-view.htm>
Bruce
Re: And away we go!
Bruce Hartweg wrote:
> T3 wrote:
>> you know what? I think a lot of this Nascar does this and that isn't
>> going to crossover to the bikes, I see them moving more in Grand Am's
>> direction rather than Nascar, but we'll see...
>
> funny you should say that - the DMG guys say the same thing...
> < http :// superbikeplanet,com /2008/Apr/080423-dmg-view.htm>
Well, you know Tom is little more than a NASBike parrot these days...
Bruce Hartweg wrote:
> T3 wrote:
>> you know what? I think a lot of this Nascar does this and that isn't
>> going to crossover to the bikes, I see them moving more in Grand Am's
>> direction rather than Nascar, but we'll see...
>
> funny you should say that - the DMG guys say the same thing...
> < http :// superbikeplanet,com /2008/Apr/080423-dmg-view.htm>
Well, you know Tom is little more than a NASBike parrot these days...
Re: And away we go!
On 2008-04-24 10:02:52 -0400, Bruce Hartweg <doNOTuse@nowhere,com > said:
> T3 wrote:
>
>>
>> Are you saying because the OEM's don't really race their stuff in
>> Nascar they don't improve? I hope not, because of course they've
>> improved and if they keep paying France and Co. they can run their
>> models too
>
> No I'm saying Nascar doesn't have anything to do with the improvements
> and I don't think winning in Nascar has much effect on car sales. Your
> ford Nascar fans won't go by a chevy if that cars wins and vice
> versa. Nascar has more advertising for non-automotive things than the
> actual makers. That could be where the new bike racing goes - pure
> entertainment and 2 wheeled billboards for soap and viagra. if that
> happens it could be "successful" but the factories won't care. Right
> now winning is advertising - later it might not matter.
What I think you might be overlooking is the brand recognition both the
OEM's and others get from Nascar with the folks that actually are
predisposed to buy their wares, that is, those people, not only can
afford, but do buy their stuff, I think it's called focused
advertising, or something of the sort. Now, I don't see Joe Blow
switching cars just because Jr., or Jeff won last Sunday, but I do
think there's some brand reinforcement happening. For instance, ever
seen one of those guys in the winner circle? I like to thank Ford,
Chevy, Pontiac, Toyota, or Ford and Viagra, Goodyear, Preparation H and
on and on. Heh, some of those guys can't name all their sponsors in one
breath and when you think about it, that's really the trick that made
Nascar what it is. Can DMG do the same for M/C racing? We'll see, but
if Grand Am is any indication, they've, at the very least, got a shot
at it..
>
>
>> you know what? I think a lot of this Nascar does this and that isn't
>> going to crossover to the bikes, I see them moving more in Grand Am's
>> direction rather than Nascar, but we'll see...
>>
>
> funny you should say that - the DMG guys say the same thing...
> < http :// superbikeplanet,com /2008/Apr/080423-dmg-view.htm>
I hadn't seen that, thanks...
On 2008-04-24 10:02:52 -0400, Bruce Hartweg <doNOTuse@nowhere,com > said:
> T3 wrote:
>
>>
>> Are you saying because the OEM's don't really race their stuff in
>> Nascar they don't improve? I hope not, because of course they've
>> improved and if they keep paying France and Co. they can run their
>> models too
>
> No I'm saying Nascar doesn't have anything to do with the improvements
> and I don't think winning in Nascar has much effect on car sales. Your
> ford Nascar fans won't go by a chevy if that cars wins and vice
> versa. Nascar has more advertising for non-automotive things than the
> actual makers. That could be where the new bike racing goes - pure
> entertainment and 2 wheeled billboards for soap and viagra. if that
> happens it could be "successful" but the factories won't care. Right
> now winning is advertising - later it might not matter.
What I think you might be overlooking is the brand recognition both the
OEM's and others get from Nascar with the folks that actually are
predisposed to buy their wares, that is, those people, not only can
afford, but do buy their stuff, I think it's called focused
advertising, or something of the sort. Now, I don't see Joe Blow
switching cars just because Jr., or Jeff won last Sunday, but I do
think there's some brand reinforcement happening. For instance, ever
seen one of those guys in the winner circle? I like to thank Ford,
Chevy, Pontiac, Toyota, or Ford and Viagra, Goodyear, Preparation H and
on and on. Heh, some of those guys can't name all their sponsors in one
breath and when you think about it, that's really the trick that made
Nascar what it is. Can DMG do the same for M/C racing? We'll see, but
if Grand Am is any indication, they've, at the very least, got a shot
at it..
>
>
>> you know what? I think a lot of this Nascar does this and that isn't
>> going to crossover to the bikes, I see them moving more in Grand Am's
>> direction rather than Nascar, but we'll see...
>>
>
> funny you should say that - the DMG guys say the same thing...
> < http :// superbikeplanet,com /2008/Apr/080423-dmg-view.htm>
I hadn't seen that, thanks...
