One Racer's Opinion Regarding The Future Of AMA Superbike

I think overall i'd have to agree but i have these observations.



I would observe that only dunlop and bridgestone tires have had the catastrophic failures. in motogp or ama. pirelli and michelin have not.



lap times drive racing and right now it appears the 800's are turning faster lap times during testing. i can't figure out if that means they are safer. since top speeds are down that must mean corner speeds are up.



so is it more likely that the 800's will increase safety? I don't know for sure, but i don't think so. i believe the limits are now with tire grip and durability, not engine displacement.



as for the debate, i think ama doesn't need both superstock and superbike. superstock will allow more people to afford it. it is a way cheaper bike to build and without superbikes, better contingency money.

This intelligent post of LightninRVF750 needs more visibility

pdad13 said "Alas, they (V-4s) were too complex, expensive and heavy--oh, and not all that competitive."

LightninRVF750 replied with

Right... the VF/VFR and the RC30 won five consecutive AMA Championships from 1984-1988; won the first two WSB Championships in 1988-1989; the RC45 won both the AMA and WSB in 1995; and Joey Dunlop and company won SIXTEEN consecutive Isle of Man TT's from 1983-1998 on VF/VFR/RC30/RC45's.

Nope, just not competitive at all...

Read more

Excellent use of facts and data LightninRVF750 you are my hero

Listen, no one is saying that a V-4 isn't a good configuration.



It's just that our resident kook thinks that because there are 800cc V-4s in MotoGP now, it MUST be a superior layout. What he doesn't seem to grasp is that choice of engine architecture is primarily guided by the rules and not what is best for consumers or streetbikes. (Although, I'd love to have a V-4 streetbike.)



If it were more feasible (e.g. competitive) and economical to continue with the V-4, they would have done so instead of going to the 1000cc twin and then the I-4. The rules indeed helped to make the V-4 less competitive.



But in recent years the I-4s have been more economical to produce with similar performance. And yes, the V-2s had a displacement advantage but also had two fewer cylinders.



I have no idea if Ferrari might like to run a 4.5 liter V-6 instead of 3-liter V-10, especially since F1 runs V-8s now. You'd have to ask them.



Most people in the know seem to acknowledge that the V-4s were dropped by Honda because of the reasons I cited. I'm sorry if that offends you. Maybe you should take it up with Honda.