Monday, October 6, 2014

Parsing MotoAmerica's 2015 class structure

So, the other shoe’s dropped—sort of—as far as MotoAmerica’s class structure goes.

It seems there will be one race for literbikes, but it will have two separately scored classes, ‘Superbike’ and ‘Superstock’.

Superbike rules basically are broken into three subsections: chassis, motor, and electronics. The chassis rules will be as per this year’s AMA rules. Engine rules will be as per 2015 SBK rules. Teams can choose to run either last year’s AMA-approved electronics package, or next season’s SBK electronics.

The Superstock class will be as per FIM Superstock regulations.

There will be two races for 600s; ‘Supersport’ and ‘Superstock’.

In 2015, Supersport bikes will be, basically, what we have been calling Daytona Sportbike. The plan is to use the AMA’s 2014 chassis rules, and FIM Supersport engine rules. Electronics will be as per the AMA’s 2014 rulebook.

Meanwhile, Superstock bikes will be built to rules similar to last year’s Supersport bikes.

If you’re confused, this chart might help.

Previously known as
AMA 2014
SBK 2015
...also includes
Superstock 1000
New class
Daytona Sportbike
AMA 2014
AMA 2014
Superstock 600
Spec TBD


From what I read, discussions are underway that could see at least two additional classes added. Apparently, MotoAmerica has talked with Harley-Davidson about the existing spec class for the now-discontinued-due-to-commercial-failure Sportster XR1200X. There’s also been lots of talk about a spec class suitable for junior riders, perhaps a la KTM RC Cup.

MotoAmerica has said that they’re leaving the possibility of incorporating a Moto2 class in 2016, when—I expect—the FIM will open Moto2 to other engine manufacturers. There’s been no mention, so far, of Moto3. As I’ve noted elsewhere, Spain’s thriving Moto3 class is probably the single best steppingstone into the World Championship right now.


I guess what we’re seeing here is MotoAmerica doing what it can to ease the transition for existing AMA Pro teams, while also lowering the barriers to entry in 600 and 1000cc classes. It would be churlish to point out that just before the DMG takeover, the AMA took a lot of heat for a show that included two 600 classes (SuperSport and Formula Xtreme) and two 1000cc classes (SuperBike and Superstock). And that the class-within-a-class structure was dismal when there were CRT teams in MotoGP. In fairness, EVO rules seem to be fairly comprehensible in BSB and World Superbike.

I would rather have seen them tear the bandaid off right away.

My suggestion would have been:

  • Superbike—a la CEV; run to FIM Superstock rules
  • Moto2—with flexibility of running any manufacturer’s motor, and grandfathering in Daytona Sportbikes
  • Moto3—allowing 125GP machines to fill the grid, a la Motostar British Championship, which is a BSB support class.

It would be easy to tweak the existing Moto2 rules to allow for additional manufacturers. Basically, it would mean using existing chassis rules, while allowing for any motor built to FIM 600 Supersport specs. You could enforce reasonable parity with claiming rules or rules forcing any manufacturer that wanted to participate to supply x number of motors at a fixed price.

I don’t know how easy it would be for American entrants to build or buy enough Moto3 bikes to fill a grid, but there are Moto3 classes in Britain, France, Spain, and Japan amongst other places.

KRAVE’s wishy-washy class structure could mean that KRAVE’s principals are stuck in the old ways themselves, which would suck; it could mean that the “manufacturers” (read: distributors) and other stakeholders (read: privateer teams and key sponsors & suppliers) are running the rules making procedure, which would also suck; or it could just mean that Wayne Rainey and KRAVE feel they need an interim year in which they have something—anything—to put on track, while they bring American road racing into the 21st C.

I’m reserving judgement. But I’d feel better if they’d announced the 2015 class structure—which is a bit of a dog’s breakfast—in the context of a statement about, “this is where we’re starting, because we have to start somewhere, but let’s be clear about where we’re heading: in two years’ time, our classes will be...”

No comments:

Post a Comment