2005 600cc Sport production results

[Shaun]

I was replying to gsvr - and as it happens, agreeing with your next post i.e. tha current 600 production bikes are great, (semi) affordable track / race bikes as standard.

Cheers for the reply

[svr]

If there was to be a class like your suggesting MNZ well and truely missed the opportunity with ProTwins!

My suggestion to any young rider with aspirations is to forget about ProTwin or F3 and just get a cheaper second hand 600 machine and ride it slowly Club racing until their skill level came up.

IMO ProTwin bikes should have been a stepping stone out of Streetstock or an introduction to racing outside of Clubmans . What would have been good with this class would have been the ability to by an SV off trademe on Friday, Wire up the sump plug, replace the coolent, and remove the lights on Saturday, And go racing on Sunday. This way alot more racebikes would enter the sport and the second market would be vibrant. If someone wasn't happy with racing a std bike then they could spend shitloads on the same bike and race it in F3.

Why don't racers at this level just race standard bikes? 6k for an sv that's probably only 1.5 secs off the pace (i.e. second in the last nationals...) and until you find the rest yourself, whats the problem?

[GSVR]

Why don't racers at this level just race standard bikes? 6k for an sv that's probably only 1.5 secs off the pace (i.e. second in the last nationals...) and until you find the rest yourself, whats the problem?

Why don't 600 riders just race standard bikes theres no rules that say they can't. As Shauns pointed out if they can ride as well as Andrew Stroud they should be able to get a win even!

[slowpoke]

Good on ya for stating this> Andrew is Andrew, and this makes his efforts on this standard shock very understandable, he was also very very fast in the full wet/damp races as well with it!

I am just seriously keen to find a way, to create an easier/cheaper lead in class to the 600 feild, I do not really believe that the average first year or second year rider, is going to be good enough anyway to win races Yet, SO WHY NOT START WITH LOWER SPEC BIKE, to learn tracks, and how the power works etc, whilst being a dam good spy, and watching what all the hot shots are doing with there bikes suspension.

NZ is a very small market place, so SPONSORSHIP is next to impossible here, so why not swallow, and get used to the fact that the NZ market place is different than say AUSTRALIA, and create this class for the future, EVEN AUS, that keeps turning out world class riders, DUE to the finance availlable over there through sales etc, has created a learner 600 class as such, brilliant, and if we followed suit, WE could get some KIWI riders over there, on = bikes for once, and then maybe, we could help to start build a path to get a future A Stroud etc out there.

I spent quite a few years in Oz, following the racing scene as a spectator before belatedly climbing the fence and having a thrash myself as finances permitted. The superstock class definitely seems to be an excellent development series. Without checking the regs I think it is basically limited to suspension mods (replacement rear shock, not sure of front but only internal mods allowed) and a slip on can, and that's pretty much it.
Given the two year life span of a 600 you could conceivably pick up a one year old bike and convert or an existing 1 year old superstock bike and be racing at the pointy end for the same as, if not less than the cost of a new road bike. If it's your fist season then ponying up for the latest and greatest is crazy, so picking up something a bit older would be much cheaper again and ideal while you are on the steep part of the learning curve.
I reckon a Superstock class is a great idea, getting youngsters onto bikes with decent power and a fair amount of adjustability as soon as possible.
Just as a point of interest the FIM 600 Superstock class at the last WSBK round was won by a 15 year old.

[trev]

At last a thread worth reading on KB. As a (minor & novice) sponsor for the last 2 years I would like to add my 2c worth.
What does this sport wish to produce here in NZ - faster bikes or faster riders ?
What do the fans want to see - who has the fastest bike or who is the fastest rider ?
What are the sponsors supporting - the development of a bike or the development of a person (rider) ?
There is too much emphasis on getting the best bike you can afford & not becoming the best rider you can be!! -
During my short involvement in the sport I have seen people making (in many cases tremendous) sacrifices to participate & the biggest mountain they have to climb is called "financial cost" Among the sacrifices being made are :-
- cutting back track time ( I can work & make more money instead )
- totally deleting any expenditure towards getting training. Don't say you don't need it because Roger Federer & Tiger Woods still do & they are pretty good.
Are these the sacrifices we want to see being made ??
Robert is right in that AT SOME STAGE we need "to embrace the technology available" but this technology produces highly sophisticated & capable machinery which needs very capable TRAINED riders to get the best from it. I do not see these riders being produced in any numbers - just a lucky chosen few. To find future champions we need racing where all of the riders on the track (not just those with the fastest / best handling bikes)can show & compare their skill levels. The 150 streetstock is a wonderful 1st step to achieving this & maybe a 600 streetstock can take it further.
For the money I outlaid over the last 2 years, for a 600 streetstock,I could have either :-
- sponsored 2 riders or
- sponsored 1 rider & paid for considerable professional training.
I'll finish how I started - what do we want to produce - faster bikes or faster riders ??

[svr]

Roger that.
Interesting that NZ produced hordes of fast young riders - several to world level - from cheap production racing in the 80's. Cheap racing was the breeding ground.
That said, to provide a spectacle we also need the highest level racing NZ can reasonably sustain. Also there is no turning back the clock on technology for the premier class(es?).
There is also a clear third function for racing classes - Racing has to be attainable for the average joe, who just wants to race a decent motorcycle for reasonable outlay. Base numbers grow the size of the sport.
Three quite divergent functions, each important, hence all the arguing.

[Shaun]

At last a thread worth reading on KB. As a (minor & novice) sponsor for the last 2 years I would like to add my 2c worth.
What does this sport wish to produce here in NZ - faster bikes or faster riders ?
What do the fans want to see - who has the fastest bike or who is the fastest rider ?
What are the sponsors supporting - the development of a bike or the development of a person (rider) ?
There is too much emphasis on getting the best bike you can afford & not becoming the best rider you can be!! -
During my short involvement in the sport I have seen people making (in many cases tremendous) sacrifices to participate & the biggest mountain they have to climb is called "financial cost" Among the sacrifices being made are :-
- cutting back track time ( I can work & make more money instead )
- totally deleting any expenditure towards getting training. Don't say you don't need it because Roger Federer & Tiger Woods still do & they are pretty good.
Are these the sacrifices we want to see being made ??
Robert is right in that AT SOME STAGE we need "to embrace the technology available" but this technology produces highly sophisticated & capable machinery which needs very capable TRAINED riders to get the best from it. I do not see these riders being produced in any numbers - just a lucky chosen few. To find future champions we need racing where all of the riders on the track (not just those with the fastest / best handling bikes)can show & compare their skill levels. The 150 streetstock is a wonderful 1st step to achieving this & maybe a 600 streetstock can take it further.
For the money I outlaid over the last 2 years, for a 600 streetstock,I could have either :-
- sponsored 2 riders or
- sponsored 1 rider & paid for considerable professional training.
I'll finish how I started - what do we want to produce - faster bikes or faster riders ??

Graham Crosby Ginger Malloy Rod Coleman Robert Holden Aaron Slight Andrew Strod Simon Crafer SORRY OTHERS

[scott411]

i agree with Shaun on this,

i think a stock 600 class would make a lot of sense, limit it to slipons only, and maybe powercommanders but that adds the cost, with footpegs and a control tyre, it would make it easier for guys to get into the class, and for dealers to get bikes ready,

a good thing is that you could go and buy a race ready bike off the floor, not everyone has the time or skills of Shaun or Robert that it takes to build a race bike, it works with motocross, and you have dealers building and selling motard bikes which is ojnje of the reasons it has taken off,

pro twins will always be limited by the fact there are only 2 manufactures, and one bike starts off with a huge dissadvanatge so thier is really only one choice, but i think its a good class,

streetstock is a great club class, and what has been done with junior riders in the south island is great, but i do not think making it a national class will improve anything, put a title in front of something and it ruins things,

[Robert Taylor]

I would tend to think that Pro Twins is exactly the class to go racing at lower cost. The rules are a good balance with very limited power enhancement allowed, standard front forks ( with emulators ) and an aftermarket rear shock allowed which enables quick and easy ride height / geometry changes, easy access to optional springing and a response range that is going to teach riders and their crew set up skills. In case we are all missing something road racing is also about learning set up and to that end also involves the crew as competitors. It is not only about the riders.
In its second year we should see pro twin numbers increase, its a relatively low cost entry level class and if riders then want to move onto the premier classes they will find a way. In saying that I think it would be wrong to dilute the specification of the two premier classes which have dragged themselves up into a proffessional class with lots of technical support available.
Given the size of our population entry numbers this past season for 600 supersport werent so bad, they could sustain a few more yes. But what is often overlooked when people cite the good old 70s is that there is a whole load more choice in leisure activities now than there was then so I think it is a little unfair to cite cost as the over-riding cause of a problem that I think is being over stated.
I think it would be foolhardy to radically mess with the rules at present and by default jeopardise all the hard work that has been put in to get pro twins off the ground.
It is also my personal opinion that people elected to positions within MNZ have no direct commercial interest within the sport. Aside from being unashamedly outspoken that is one reason I would never put my own name forward as I feel I would be belying a long standing etiqutte observed within western society, that is avoiding having a conflict of interest.

[Shaun]

i agree with Shaun on this,

i think a stock 600 class would make a lot of sense, limit it to slipons only, and maybe powercommanders but that adds the cost, with footpegs and a control tyre, it would make it easier for guys to get into the class, and for dealers to get bikes ready,

a good thing is that you could go and buy a race ready bike off the floor, not everyone has the time or skills of Shaun or Robert that it takes to build a race bike, it works with motocross, and you have dealers building and selling motard bikes which is ojnje of the reasons it has taken off,

pro twins will always be limited by the fact there are only 2 manufactures, and one bike starts off with a huge dissadvanatge so thier is really only one choice, but i think its a good class,

streetstock is a great club class, and what has been done with junior riders in the south island is great, but i do not think making it a national class will improve anything, put a title in front of something and it ruins things,

Thankyou Scott. I also see the benifit in the dealer net work being more involved, as the time and money and required knoledge is a lot less

[svr]

Given the size of our population entry numbers this past season for 600 supersport werent so bad, they could sustain a few more yes. But what is often overlooked when people cite the good old 70s is that there is a whole load more choice in leisure activities now than there was then so I think it is a little unfair to cite cost as the over-riding cause of a problem that I think is being over stated.

Sorry Robert I have to disgree - the single biggest obstacle to motor sport participation is cost. A 30k access fee would kill most sports stone dead. Junior road racers must rely heavily on their parents for large financial sacrifices, and junior normally also has to forgo higher education. This tends to exclude anyone except those with wealthy or extremely dedicated parents - i.e. the available talent pool is limited, to say the least.
In order to attract and develop talented young riders in decent numbers, surely road racing needs to be more open and merit-based? The basic skills of riding a `proper' bike at the limit is the absolute pre-requite which needs to learnt very early on in the riders development.
Yes set-up skills do matter (although that didn't stop Fogarty...), and in any case 600 production bikes do have some scope for set-up.
I don't disagree with any of your technical comments, it's only the Tory elitism I can't help but take issue with!
Anyone who truly loves their sport wants it to grow, right? Even if that means letting in the working-class kids...
600 production just makes sense.

[slowpoke]

I dunno if it's applicable but for what it's worth the AMA is going through exactly the sort of growing pains we are talking about, as the new owners/promoters try to inject new life into the struggling series. The owners of the highly successful NASCAR series are now in charge so it'll be interesting to see how their proposed changes pan out.

I think Trev makes some good points and it's interesting to hear from the perspective of a sponsor. In a way we are almost talking to the wrong people...or more to the point, we seem to be ignoring important participants (sponsors), when it comes to discussing ways to progress the sport.

For my money, as a spectator, I'd rather see 6 racers battling for the lead on close to stock 600's or 1000's, rather than 2 racers leading by half a lap on bikes 1.5 sec/lap quicker than the rest. Yes, it would be nice to have a series where everyone is exposed to the latest technology and bikes of the highest caliber but the series isn't healthy enough to allow it at the moment. Once numbers are up and exposure/sponsors abound then we can looking at up-speccing the bikes. Until then I reckon the KISS philosophy will help get us back on track (excuse the pun): Keep It Simple, Stupid.

[scott411]

Thankyou Scott. I also see the benifit in the dealer net work being more involved, as the time and money and required knoledge is a lot less

the dealers are a bigger source than you think, if you could get away with racing your demo 600 sports bike it may bring an extra riders in, making the bike very saleable at the end of the excercise is also good thing,

at the moment it is two hard and costly to build a competitive 600 sports production bike, and it is two hard to sell at the end of the year as well,

[Robert Taylor]

Sorry Robert I have to disgree - the single biggest obstacle to motor sport participation is cost. A 30k access fee would kill most sports stone dead. Junior road racers must rely heavily on their parents for large financial sacrifices, and junior normally also has to forgo higher education. This tends to exclude anyone except those with wealthy or extremely dedicated parents - i.e. the available talent pool is limited, to say the least.
In order to attract and develop talented young riders in decent numbers, surely road racing needs to be more open and merit-based? The basic skills of riding a `proper' bike at the limit is the absolute pre-requite which needs to learnt very early on in the riders development.
Yes set-up skills do matter (although that didn't stop Fogarty...), and in any case 600 production bikes do have some scope for set-up.
I don't disagree with any of your technical comments, it's only the Tory elitism I can't help but take issue with!
Anyone who truly loves their sport wants it to grow, right? Even if that means letting in the working-class kids...
600 production just makes sense.

For the record I work amicably with people from all walks of life and political persuasions. 600 Sports Production is one of the two premier classes and neednt be messed with too much, there are other classes for entry level and smaller budgets such as Pro Twins. Thats the reality.

[Robert Taylor]

the dealers are a bigger source than you think, if you could get away with racing your demo 600 sports bike it may bring an extra riders in, making the bike very saleable at the end of the excercise is also good thing,

at the moment it is two hard and costly to build a competitive 600 sports production bike, and it is two hard to sell at the end of the year as well,

I think Brian Bernard and Dave Cole might disagree with you there as examples of people that have onsold their 600s recently. These were sold with all the kit on them but you can appreciate more return very often by onselling the up-spec parts seperately. This second hand market for up-spec parts at considerably less than retail helps to reduce costs for many.
Racing 600cc and up stock bikes is fraught with more technical and set up problems than most people realise, mark my words.