F1 and F2 or Superbike and Supersport for Nationals

[Billy]

As the title suggests,


Which and Why ???

[budda]

As the title suggests,


Which and Why ???

YOU are a naughty, naughty boy ..........

[steveyb]

IMO, Superbike and Supersport.
They are what the modern world understands as class titles and structures.
The actual rules behind them need only be known by competitors.
They should be Superbike and Supersport rules, but in NZ would best be in keeping with Superstock rules I would imagine. Clearly full-on Superbike and Supersport rules would lead to some budget competition, while more Superstock like rules make team/rider competition more relevant.

If the titles F1 and F2 were used they would lose all relevancy in the greater marketplace.
Those 'classes' really should be left for club championships to allow and encourage one-offs and older bikes a place to be used.

We must also make a real concerted effort to use the title New Zealand Superbike Championship (NZSBK) only.
There should be no mention of Motorcycle Road Racing , road racing or anything else like that. All of that dilutes the concept and brand and dilutes the differentiation between other sports (cycling and running both have road racing championships). I continue to dispair when even official communications use NZ Road Racing Champs etc.

My 2c worth.

Steve
Moto Academy NZ
Innovative Moto Developments

[Billy]

IMO, Superbike and Supersport.
They are what the modern world understands as class titles and structures.
The actual rules behind them need only be known by competitors.
They should be Superbike and Supersport rules, but in NZ would best be in keeping with Superstock rules I would imagine. Clearly full-on Superbike and Supersport rules would lead to some budget competition, while more Superstock like rules make team/rider competition more relevant.

If the titles F1 and F2 were used they would lose all relevancy in the greater marketplace.
Those 'classes' really should be left for club championships to allow and encourage one-offs and older bikes a place to be used.

We must also make a real concerted effort to use the title New Zealand Superbike Championship (NZSBK) only.
There should be no mention of Motorcycle Road Racing , road racing or anything else like that. All of that dilutes the concept and brand and dilutes the differentiation between other sports (cycling and running both have road racing championships). I continue to dispair when even official communications use NZ Road Racing Champs etc.

My 2c worth.

Steve
Moto Academy NZ
Innovative Moto Developments

Some good points....BUT,

Superstock is NOT gonna happen in the immediate future,As the ONLY distributor that puts any real money into our sport has rejected it on numerous occassions,As have several others.

In hindsight,I could have worded the title a little better,In effect it's the rules I was referring to,My bad,By restricting it to homologated models only,It also limits things we can do in other areas and bear in mind the abovementioned distributor has chosen to put their funds into a series that runs F1/2 as opposed to the Nationals,I can tell you all categorically now,There is NO naming rights sponsor for NZSBK 2014,In fact there is very little support at all,By changing the rules back to F1/2 we can immediately link up with the Suzuki series and make it better for both parties.

In regard to the name of the championship,That is what is in the rulebook and that as far as I am aware is how the board want it,I could be wrong,Propose a rulechange and I'll put it up on the website and see here it goes.Also the ONLY championships recognised in NZ and anywhere else for that matter are those granted a permit with Championship status,ALL the rest are just clubman series and should be referred to as such.

[JayRacer37]

IMO, Superbike and Supersport.
They are what the modern world understands as class titles and structures.
The actual rules behind them need only be known by competitors.
They should be Superbike and Supersport rules, but in NZ would best be in keeping with Superstock rules I would imagine. Clearly full-on Superbike and Supersport rules would lead to some budget competition, while more Superstock like rules make team/rider competition more relevant.

If the titles F1 and F2 were used they would lose all relevancy in the greater marketplace.
Those 'classes' really should be left for club championships to allow and encourage one-offs and older bikes a place to be used.

We must also make a real concerted effort to use the title New Zealand Superbike Championship (NZSBK) only.
There should be no mention of Motorcycle Road Racing , road racing or anything else like that. All of that dilutes the concept and brand and dilutes the differentiation between other sports (cycling and running both have road racing championships). I continue to dispair when even official communications use NZ Road Racing Champs etc.

My 2c worth.

Steve
Moto Academy NZ
Innovative Moto Developments

100% agree. Nuff said.

[Mental Trousers]

In hindsight,I could have worded the title a little better,In effect it's the rules I was referring to,My bad

What do you want the title changed to?

I've always said the rules should be

• stock engine internals (possibly even officially sealed engines if necessary)
• everything else can be modified or replaced

Everyone else in the world uses the names Superbike and Supersport no matter what their rules are.

[steveyb]

Ah, Ok, you are thinking about perhaps liberalising the rules a bit more? i.e. opening up the mods that can be made so that machines can be built to fit into NZSBK, Tri-Series and all club series.

There is a hint of tail wagging the dog in that, but see below to see that I am not opposed to that if the reasons are robust.

If this is so, I would offer what I have gathered over the past few years listening to the hand-wringers and others about how to improve participation especially in those classes.

The benefits to opening up the rules to allow more modifications towards a more F1/F2 style philosophy, (recalling that this is a summary of the arguments I have heard, not all my own opinion) are:
that it will encourage the distributors to produce better and better machinery for the best riders to display their talents. We absolutely need the distributors involvement, any other talk is poppycock;
that it will allow for more innovation by teams and riders in terms of what mods they make and how they make them;
that it will bring our rules closer in line with other jurisdictions around the world (although this may change in the next few years with the rise of the EVO class concepts perhaps??);
that it will allow some future proofing of machines so that they might start life with mods that can be upgraded as time and new tech comes along therefore not necessarily needing replacing each second year or whatever.

Downsides as I have gathered:
that budgets to buy parts and make mods mean that only well funded teams and riders can compete;
that only riders and teams with the know how can compete;
that only distributor teams have access to the real McCoy stuff thereby disadvantaging the privateers;

In my opinion the downsides as presented (and I may have missed some) all smack of socialist mediocracy in that we should create a system where everyone can have a go and everyone can win. I don't ascribe to that philosophy and believe that sport is a meritocracy where the best get the best and everyone else strives to become the best one way or another. Riders on the best bikes either buy the rides or earn them. The former is just life, the latter is what sport is.

My comment in first post was assuming some future movement around the world towards a more Superstock type treatment of rules, such as what we will see in World Superbike and BSB with the new EVO concepts. I suspect however, that if we wish to remain in the Production bike space here in NZ, even the most modified type rules we might comfortably establish would likely end up somewhere near that level of specification anyway. I believe that these rules are not being established to dumb down those championships, just to make them more affordable for more competitors. In the end, the best will still be the best and will still get the best out of the rules and the technologies.

If on the other hand, we decide to move to an F1/F2 space into the future, then we will need to devise rules for all sorts of special types of machines that may wish to compete and not just production bikes. I would think that creating F1/F2 rules to allow Production Superbikes etc the ability to use special cams, ECU's quickshifters and carbon wheels is not really F1/F2 is it. Full F1/F2 would mean Brittons, Rotaries, 500 2-strokes perhaps, carbon frames, special fuels perhaps, turbos etc etc. While purists may well think that is the way to go, I doubt that it would be an easy sell in the sport/industry/marketplace, for whatever value that might have (see below).

As for the lack of a naming rights sponsor, that is quite a sad state of affairs and one I guess that there is no easy fix for, especially at this late date. Although I am sure plenty will be able to state why that is the case without offering a solution.

To offer a lending hand in that direction Billy, if a sponsor were to want to underwrite the series, what level of commitment would they be required to come up with?

That must be 5c by now....

Cheers.

[mr bucketracer]

when it comes to 600s and prombly 1000s i think stock engines are the best 20k+cheaper this is nz !and why guys are running the higher end engines because classes are combinded and who could be the best rider out there could be running in the stocker class and look like a nobody!! . so why biff you money away ..we want to keep riders in the sport! .. this is only what i think..cheers time for another whisky i think

[Drew]

Tying the tri series and the nats together leads to less racing. I don't much like that.

[Skunk]

I personally like open rules.
The Formula rules were as open as you can get. Nearly impossible to cheat.
The biggest pocket always has the fastest bike. Whether you spend it on the dyno (Superbike) or the go-fast parts bin (Formula 1) doesn't matter.
Bigger fields mean better racing. Not everyone can afford a least than two year old bike. Not tying it to the latest bikes means we might get more entrants.
Good riders will be found even if they are on older gear.

We have
Superbike
Supersport
Superstock
Superlite
And some think that's good branding to Joe Public... I think there are too many Supers in there.

I think they'd understand
Formula 1
Formula 2
Formula 3
better.

One thing I've never understood is the fascination with what the rules are in other countries. We should be making rules that work here, with our riders, our supporters, our economy, our talents. Carve our own path instead of following others. Like Steve Roberts, Robert Holden, John Britten... If the distributors aren't supporting the 'race on Sunday buy on Monday' theory why should we stick to it?

Create on Sunday, patent on Monday.




If it ain't smokin' - it's broken.

[mr bucketracer]

I personally like open rules.
The Formula rules were as open as you can get. Nearly impossible to cheat.
The biggest pocket always has the fastest bike. Whether you spend it on the dyno (Superbike) or the go-fast parts bin (Formula 1) doesn't matter.
Bigger fields mean better racing. Not everyone can afford a least than two year old bike. Not tying it to the latest bikes means we might get more entrants.
Good riders will be found even if they are on older gear.

We have
Superbike
Supersport
Superstock
Superlite
And some think that's good branding to Joe Public... I think there are too many Supers in there.

I think they'd understand
Formula 1
Formula 2
Formula 3
better.

One thing I've never understood is the fascination with what the rules are in other countries. We should be making rules that work here, with our riders, our supporters, our economy, our talents. Carve our own path instead of following others. Like Steve Roberts, Robert Holden, John Britten... If the distributors aren't supporting the 'race on Sunday buy on Monday' theory why should we stick to it?

Create on Sunday, patent on Monday.




If it ain't smokin' - it's broken.

tim gibbs just had a dyno at the track 2hp over and you lost your points , you did not want the bike on the dyno you lost your points .. easy... hard man but fair

[Skunk]

tim gibb just had a dyno at the track 2hp over and you lost your points , you did not want the bike on the dyno you lost your points .. easy... hard man but fair

It's not that easy. There is much that can be done within the rules of Superbike etc if you have the money. It wouldn't even work for straight out Production engines. You would have to have Production pipes and ignition systems. Boring...


If it ain't smokin' - it's broken.

[Drew]

tim gibbs just had a dyno at the track 2hp over and you lost your points , you did not want the bike on the dyno you lost your points .. easy... hard man but fair

Doesn't seem fair at all to me.

Spending coin to get the absolute most out of a motor, within the rules, will get you more than two horses.

Balance/blue print a motor and fuel it to over rev, and you're out of points? Screw that.

[mr bucketracer]

Doesn't seem fair at all to me.

Spending coin to get the absolute most out of a motor, within the rules, will get you more than two horses.

Balance/blue print a motor and fuel it to over rev, and you're out of points? Screw that.

l am talking about stock engines not ones played around with

[Billy]

l am talking about stock engines not ones played around with

I don't disagree with the idea,But you obviously didnt read my post above on that subject,Its NOT gonna happen as the distributors do not want it and as Steve has rightly pointed out We need their support.