You know, when the proposed rules for next year's Daytona were published, everybody--okay, maybe not everybody--but most were saying "You've got to be kidding."

Before we go any further, I will say on record that I'm glad we are not racing 200 miles around Daytona on 200-210 hp motorcycles approaching speeds of 200 mph. I just hope "our" race is on Thursday so I can be home to watch the main event on Speed.

One thing I wonder is how much input all the manufacturers had when it came time to decide what bikes were to be raced at Daytona in 2005--the apparent "world center of racing." Actually, I was inspecting the circuit at Indy the other day and whilst there, I noticed a huge sign on their museum saying that they are the "world center of racing." I'm confused, because the last time I looked, the world is round and can only have one center.

I think it is a step in the right direction to cut the horsepower of the bikes at Daytona. There is only one problem with that: Superbikes and Superstock bikes are still racing. I already hear people saying "Yeah, but the races are shorter, so the tires won't be a problem." Interesting point, and it's true if we use the tires that were developed for 19-to-20-lap stints in our 12- or 14-lap races.

But, trust me, that won't happen. Enter the tire manufacturers. Like the motorcycle manufacturers, they like to win and develop their products tirelessly and constantly to be the best. In the 2004 Superbike race, people may recall that I did between 13- and 15-lap stints with three pit stops because I couldn't make the tires last 19 laps for the traditional two stops. I also had a tire that, for one flying lap, was four seconds better than my race tire on lap 10. I'd say about three seconds better than my race tire on laps one through five. So, for a three-second improvement in lap times, my tire will only last one lap. Of course, I am talking about a qualifying tire but that doesn't matter because the picture I'm trying to paint is that tire life is directly related to tire performance. The fewer laps, the more grip the tire has and, typically, less longevity.

Now, there is no magical formula for predicting how fast and far a tire can go at Daytona, but it is safe to say that if the Superbike race is 12 laps next year, the pace will be a lot quicker than the first 12 laps of this year's race. Oh, I hear the cries from the crowd again: "That's because it will be a sprint race."

Daytona is a sprint race now with a few pit stops. It is essentially the length of three normal national races and, contrary to popular belief, it is very easy physically--mentally tough, but physically easy. The tires will be built to go the distance, and if one of the manufacturers is going quicker than the next, then they will work very hard to catch up. If they can make a tire to go one lap, they can make one to go 12, 14, or whatever it may be. So, the problem still exists.

We are racing at Daytona on 200-210 hp motorcycles going 200 mph (spinning the rear tire to about 210+ mph coming off the east banking with a concrete wall inches from your head). Okay, sorry, I'm being melodramatic about the situation. I should be happy that we only have to do it 12 or 14 times in 2005.

I was asked at the tire test in 2003 what I thought would be the best thing to do. I said restrictor plate racing for Daytona. All bikes are wheeled onto a dyno on the way to the start line and 150 hp is max. Very simple to do as everything is the same, bar some minor tuning. Of course, I was asked after taking a beating with lap times for two days. So, I was just looking after my best interests, right? People forgot that I made the same suggestion one year earlier after getting on our new bike and tearing things up at our first test. Safety comes first. I don't need to say much more about that so onto the next subject.

Formula Extreme as the main race at Daytona in 2005. What can you say? Safety-wise, it is better--no question. But, the Daytona 200 in 2005 will consist of a few factory Hondas and a bunch of privateers. The safer part could have been achieved with restrictors for Superbikes. The restrictors could have been as such to limit the horsepower to something similar to what Formula Extreme is. The bikes weigh the same, so what would be the difference except a 1000 sticker on the fairing rather than a 600? Anyway, we are always reminded that the reason some things happen--i.e. Superbike rule changes for 2004--is because the privateers are high on the priority list and can't afford carbon airboxes and factory throttle bodies. So, all they need to do now is build a one-off bike to race in America's most prestigious race.

This is the order that I would have put things in for Daytona in 2005:

1. Superbikes with restrictors.

2. Superstock bikes with quick-change equipment and restrictors (Jeez, I forgot, that's a Superbike). All manufacturers are fielding these in 2004.

3. 600 Supersport. The majority of the manufacturers are fielding these in 2004.

4. Formula Extreme. Only one manufacturer has these in 2004. If you take the word of the three main manufacturers that are not in Formula Extreme this year, then the 2005 Daytona will be fielding the same factory bikes as it did in 2004. Just one brand. Sad when America's biggest motorcycle race is fielding the bikes of just one factory team.

It's also a real shame because Superbike should be getting stronger in 2005. I hear whispers of "Why". Well, it looks like Suzuki will have three Superbikes, Honda has three now and probably also will for next year, and apparently Ducati is going to field two. I remember at Barber in 2003, Yamaha and Kawasaki were leaning towards not getting into Superbike because the rules weren't solid. As we all read, the current Superbike rules will be the same through the end of 2006 and maybe, just maybe, beyond. Hopefully they will come back and play in America's big class. They both have very good riders on the payroll, so for the sake of all the fans and followers, they should jump in.

The last thing to talk about is the very real talk of 600cc motorcycles being the main class in a few years. All I can say is "Vomit". This is America--Big is Best. It's commonly known around the world that if America doesn't have it, then nobody does. Well, that may hold true for a lot of things, but not for the racetracks. Changing the capacity of the motorcycle to suit the racetracks is not a winning formula. Besides, it's not making the tracks any safer, so that should also mean something. If you look at that theory then, 125s would be the way to go for safety. Let's look into it a bit more: First, get a picture for this: At Infineon, the 600 Supersport bikes are roughly two seconds per lap slower than the Superbikes. At Road America, they are roughly six seconds per lap slower. The difference for people who haven't seen the two tracks is the corners-to-straights ratio. Yes, that's right. At a place like Infineon, the 600s are very close to the Superbike times because of how fast they are in the middle of a turn. Despite all the acceleration benefits of the Superbike off all of the turns, the 600s are still very close due to "corner speed".

So, with all that corner speed and the bikes weighing the same, one would come to the assumption that the 600 will hit that wall harder than the Superbike (momentum). Now, I could be wrong but I've seen the commercials on TV that tell you five mph in your car can decrease your stopping time dramatically. You get the picture.

Let's quickly revisit the tires. If the tire manufacturers can make tires to stay under the bikes, then the 600s are every bit as dangerous as the Superbikes when it comes to concrete walls--if not more so.

One more thing to ponder: In 1992, my 750cc Superbike had a horsepower number in the mid 130s. If we were racing full FIM-spec 750s now, that number would be approaching 200hp. In saying that, the Formula Extreme rules are wide open for the most part. There are FX bikes that are probably making 150hp, or soon will be, so how long will it be before they grow out of these tracks? Even if you put aside the fact that they are already faster in the middle of the turns where the concrete walls are the closest.

You can't make race bikes to suit the tracks. If the walls are too close for a 1000, then they are to close for a 600.

In a few years, I understand MotoGP is cutting back to 900cc. By the time it happens, they will be as fast as what they have now.

Sure, there has to be some sort of a limit, but the walls are already too close for the 600s. It's not the answer.

Stay safe and ride smart.
Cheers
Mat Mladin