National/ Pro Riders Stealing the Ex Championsh

[Mark Bernard]

Great points.

But I can't wait to race in Formula 40...LOL!

Neither can we...?  ??? lol!

[StuartV666]

Mongo, you seem to not even want to consider this point.  I like to race, I can't be an amateur any more, and I don't want to race with pros.

I think the whole point is, how do you define "pro"? There doesn't seem to be any good way. If you think there is, then why don't you try writing it up just how it should appear in the rulebook and post it here? Remember, it has to be enforceable. I.e. it has to be written in such a way that people can actually prove that they are legal, and other people could prove it if a person is illegal.

- Stu

[K3 Chris Onwiler]

I have fully answered your question - you just don't like the answer.  My opinion is simple - if you are doing this for fun then an expectation of winning a National Championship is unreasonable.  Expectations of Regional Championships are reasonable.  

Well then.  It would appear that I've already earned everything that I can reasonably expect from racing.  Actually, I'm cool with that.  Just locally there are guys that I'll probably never beat, so to expect a national championship would be unreasonable.  I never argued that point.
But the up and comers like Jessie, Thorny, Tez and Kevin have to beat the pros to win.  And they have to do it on the same track with all the experts that are 5-7 seconds a lap slower.  (That would include me.)  Have you ever raced Mongo?  Have you ever been punted off the track by a pro?  How did you like it?
Look at the average EX/AM combined race.  There might be 8 or 9 experts lined up in front of 30 or 40 amateurs.  Why the difference in numbers?  That should be pretty obvious.  Unless you have the gift, it can really suck to be an expert.  I've been an expert for one year, and have found half the seconds I need to be competitive.  I will come back next year and try to find the other half.  But how many don't come back?  Guys go expert, race for half a season and then disappear.  I claw along, too stubborn or stupid to admit defeat, but I am the exception rather than the rule.  Learning curves licences 10 new racers every weekend all summer long, but the grids don't get any bigger.  The status quo seems to be that the organizations keep loading guys in at the bottom, a few make it to the very top, and the rest leave after a few years.  Does this make sense?  How does racing get any bigger through this plan?  I really expected this issue to come up in the thread about why racers quit, but it never did.
I corner worked for 15 years before I began racing.  In the Midwest, I can only think of Breuer, Key, Stein, Styles and Rosno who have lasted a whole decade.  Where is everyone else?  Mongo, do you think it would make sense to address this issue?  I'm not trying to bait you here.  I'm trying to have a legitimate, intelligent discussion about something that troubles me.

[YAM#849]

  Forgive me if this is a repeat of someone's previous comment- I tried to read all of this, but some of it gets LONG.
  I think the philosophy of the ROC should still be a showdown of all the best from the different regions.  That's what it should be, but not what it's turning into, because people run one race earlier in the year, and show up on the grid.  If CCS required riders to score a certain (reasonably large)number of CCS points during the year to get into the ROC, like WERA does for the GNF, this wouldn't be such an issue.  As Mongo points out, there are always national level riders at the GNF, and one has to beat them to win.   But those guys, the "Pros" if you will, are also WERA guys in that they do race a significant amount in that series to get the GNF invite.  Or perhaps that's just my perception of what the beef is.

[StuartV666]

Look at the average EX/AM combined race.  There might be 8 or 9 experts lined up in front of 30 or 40 amateurs.  Why the difference in numbers?  That should be pretty obvious.  Unless you have the gift, it can really suck to be an expert.

I think there's a different answer. At least for some. My first racing "career" was from '90 - '94. I stopped because I was broke. I think that is the most common cause of attrition. You spend a lot of money in your first season or two and tell yourself, "once I get going good, the contingencies will start coming in. I'll pick up a little sponsorship, etc.." That doesn't happen and eventually, you have to stop bleeding money. It took me six years of being "out" before I felt ready to come back to it. And I came back with the plan "I'm just going to race when I can afford it. Just for fun." And look what this season turned into for me. I couldn't resist going for Regional championships. And I am beyond broke now (again). Unless I get some big help for next year, I'll probably only run the races at Roebling next year ('cause I get free entries) and Barber's ('cause I just love that track too much not to go).

Two of my really good friends and racing buddies were rookie Experts this year. Next year, they won't be back. The reason? They are broke and need to take next year off to pay off credit cards, etc.. They're going to sell their race bikes to help. Will they be back? It's hard for me to imagine them getting through the next year, paying off their credit cards, etc., then saying "okay, I want to do that all over again." Maybe they will, maybe they won't.

Bottom line is: I think the reason you often see small Expert grids and big Amateur grids is nothing to do with "Pros" coming out and everything to do with the expense of this sport. And I don't mean the expense of being a front-running Expert - I just mean the basic expenses of coming out and racing at all.

- Stu

[Frank_Angel]

First, many fast racers don't have a clue on what they are doing.  So, to ask one, well, they just don't know what they are doing, so how can they tell you.  Matt Wait is a nice guy, but he always looks concussed...right?

I think you're far off the mark with your example, Matt is pretty darn good at communicating. Last year before Pocono when he lost his FUSA ride he stayed with us for a week and practiced at Pocono in a NESBA event on our bikes. I was personally changing settings on the bikes between his preferences and Nate's, and his lap times improved significantly during the day. I won't comment on the cheap shot - other than to say that guy has been banged around pretty hard at times in his career but he's had the fortitude to gather himself back up and still compete at a high level.

Better than the rest of us?  Might just be out of their own element.  Really, practicing among guys that are slower than you, substantially, isn't really very good practice.  Might give them an idea where the track goes, but that's about it.  Regardless, going to a track where you know few people can be a bit uncomfortable, especially when everyone seems to have a notion about you.

I disagree with you a bit here, Dave. Matt, Worm and Barney are some of the nicest guys you'll ever meet. I've never, ever, seen any of them refuse to talk to someone or act like they own the place - they all pretty much all remember where they came from and aren't arrogant at all. But they're just people, putting their pants on the same way you do. Some are better at meeting people - but I can't imagine anyone friendlier than these three guys. Matt is laid back California but approachable. I know there were a lot of guys who met him at that NESBA event last year. Worm has a huge reputation as a prankster. And Barney is about as classy as road racers come. I've borrowed tools from Lee Acree at the track - he's one of the nicest, most genuine guys you'll meet.

As for paying for equipment....

Every one of the three guys I mentioned has worked his butt off and made supreme sacrifices to get where they are. Matt grew up racing against Ben Bostrom at the Lodi Cycle Bowl, and beat him on a regular basis. Sure, he and Worm had the Ferracci ride(s), but they earned them. And Matt had a shot at 500GP and learned that it's tough on an uncompetitive bike. Worm has worked extremely hard to put together two first class AMA privateer efforts, and there aren't many guys who can say that. Dave, you know Barney's AMA Superbike effort this year was the farthest thing from a "finest money can buy" funded effort. He still finished 12th in the championship, and he would have done better had he not gotten dinged up in practice at Mid-Ohio and missed the weekend. Anyone notice he won Thunderbike at Daytona on an eleven year old F2?

,,,continued

[Frank_Angel]

...continued

Racers period pay huge prices to be racers.  I haven't had a live outside of racing since about 1987.  I can hardly relate to the real world.  Riders at that level have sacrificed everything to get where they are, and they are rewarded by sponsors for their skills and sacrifices.  Some of us have made commitments in our family lives and job choices that differ from racers.  If you're a factory racer and you get hurt, you can't go back to work and do desk duty...you might be out of a job.  And what skills does your regular pro racer have?  Can Pegram type?

You're right on the money there, but I think most people don't understand how much of a commitment is involved. Ever see Pegram at a race without his Dad? Any idea how much is mother and father have sacrificed to help him get where he is today?

...snip...

Upper level riders often are uniquely gifted.  Might have acute sight and quick reaction times.  That alone might be worth a couple of seconds a lap compared to the rest of us.  Even if we had all the money in the world, we still wouldn't lap nearly as fast a Mladin or Rossi, let alone a guy like Michael Barnes.

You can take that to the bank. No disrespect intended, but I find the earlier reply bragging about keeping up with Pegram at Daytona to be almost delusional. If you were hanging with him it was because he wanted you to. Wake up.

...snip...

Pro racers have a better set up often because they chase a better set up.  I'm sure Shawn Higbee could take a whole lot of our bikes and make some substantial changes to them so that they worked better for him.  Again, the experience he paid for (I remember when he and his dad traveled around in a converstion van and Shawn worked at a Harley dealership) still wasn't cheap.  And the sacrifices he made in his life were more costly than what most are willing to do.  That's why he's faster.

Excellent point. As you know, Dave, you can have a bike dialed in perfectly for a rider, but when he starts pushing it things change, and so does the setup. That's the magic of a good tuner/rider relationship and the basis for a winning team. Matt and Chuck/Don showed that this year. Worm has had a few guys that he's worked with very well. Barney and Tony have been together and it's a good combination. They succeed because they push the limits, and aren't satisifed with the status quo.

[WebCrush]

You can take that to the bank. No disrespect intended, but I find the earlier reply bragging about keeping up with Pegram at Daytona to be almost delusional. If you were hanging with him it was because he wanted you to. Wake up.

Why is that hard to believe?  The guys not magic, really hasn't done anything spectacular except shoot his mouth off at every chance.

Greenwood was able to keep himself in front of him last year without too much trouble.  And hell, I even passed Greenwood at Daytona during practice (given, he's on the SS bike and I"m on a +3mm superbike, and he nearly punted me in the chicane trying to avoid hitting me) but again--I wouldn't say its impossible.

[Frank_Angel]

Why is that hard to believe?  The guys not magic, really hasn't done anything spectacular except shoot his mouth off at every chance.

Greenwood was able to keep himself in front of him last year without too much trouble.  And hell, I even passed Greenwood at Daytona during practice (given, he's on the SS bike and I"m on a +3mm superbike, and he nearly punted me in the chicane trying to avoid hitting me) but again--I wouldn't say its impossible.

I didn't say it was impossible, I said if the guy was passing Pegram it was because they weren't racing and he should wake up to that fact.

Larry finished 4th in 2002 FUSA Superbike, Scott was 8th. Larry was 2nd in 2002 FUSA Sportbike, Scott was 7th. I'm confused about your reference to Scott staying ahead of Pegram last year. Don't take me wrong, Scott is certainly no slouch, but I'm missing your point.

As far as what has he done, he put a relatively uncompetitive Duc on the AMA Superbike podium at Road America in June. And he had 7 top 10's this year. But you could do that, right? Greenwood too, right? Give the guy the credit he's earned.

Larry will be back to AMA Superbike racing, so everyone will have their opportunity to prove how good they are against him on the track. You've come a pretty long way in a short period of time, but no offense, the next time I see you on the podium at an AMA Superbike event I'll take your comments about Larry more seriously.

[r6_philly]

Great, another one saying if you are not fast enough you not qualify to make comments about someone... Gee then unless you finish on a AMA podium or a FUSA podium, I cannot take you serious about your comments about greenwoood, or anyone else for that matter.

Nothing personal, just how it comes out. If we are going to sit around and show credentials before talking, we wouldn't be doing much talking now would we

[Frank_Angel]

Yeah, Dafan, rereading my post it sounds a little confrontational - didn't intend it that way. Just a little strange to me that a CCS amateur would brag about smoking Pegram and sound halfway serious about it. Maybe I misunderstood his post though.

[Super_KC124]

 I also don't like powder puff classes and I don't like the over 40 classes.  It's giving people something they can't earn in the real world or in this case the real race classes.  

Well,  :P :P :P