I would love to try to race a 390 or 300. Wonder what the Tire bill is, Isaac?
Printable View
I would love to try to race a 390 or 300. Wonder what the Tire bill is, Isaac?
You can save a lot by tent camping and pit out on the "beach".
Echoing Bill. I only spent $2400 on my first year racing.
Philkinson is the cheapest racer i know. Man doesnt allow himself any fun on race weekends. For me part of the race experience is getting away from home and having fun with friends that are as obsessed with bikes as you are. I say to get the real experience def add a budget for shitty food and some beers to have with friends. Also to poke fun at pbilkinson again dont hang out with all of us, have a beer and then disappear when we look down just to find that your asleep in your sleeping bag and ditched all of us.
It's called a mortgage, a kid and a 401k.
All 3 of those take priority over my hobby.
But let's not get too far off topic.
$5,000. Don't crash hard, and when you do, make sure you have spent the money on the best gear you can afford.
Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
I love poking fun at philly..... Its also part of the experience hahahaha
I've had a lot of ambitious thoughts about racing (2019 depending on how all my training and track days go next year). I also wanted to ask the experts here what makes sense for an amateur race bike, for budget purposes? Sometimes it isn't extremely clear on racing org sites what the CC / engine classes are. LRRS is just out of my distance zone but there is CCS and a few other orgs, so the classes may be a bit different for whatever I get into.
I have been looking for a dedicated track bike but I'm thinking about future proofing by buying what would make sense to race as well. A cheap prepped RSVR came up recently but a heavy twin seems as though it isn't the best place to start, and the feedback is it is simply no longer a competitive sportbike.
I keep wandering between the 300cc series bikes (R3/Kawi/RC390), Daytona 675, SV650, or an RSV4. The latter 'cause I'm an Aprilia fanboy and I dig the V4 engine after riding a TV4, but that is more want than need or likely sane for amateur racing.
300 or SV are ideal. Racing an RSV4 would likely cost double or more, and it will hold back your development into a good racer possibly indefinitely. (I know many people are about to freak out on me, but that is my seasoned opinion).
I agree with Paul. 300 is the most cost effective way to race
Even in Jersey, there have been a bunch of guys racing 300's. They had a great series at nyst this past year, too.
I agree with Paul.
I agree. Btw, he is talking about the twin, not the fire breathing 4 banger haha. I raced a rsv1000r this year and it was fun, but I think it would hinder a beginner like Paul said. Get a 300 or so and have a ball! If you get quick on that it will make it much easier to step up to a bigger bike since you won't be using the power as a crutch. You'll still carry the same corner speed you did when you were on a small bike.
I have a gen2 twin street bae that I've enjoyed on the track (avatar pic), and I was considering purchasing an identical RSVR that is already track prepped. I'm completing all levels of CSS with their BMW RR... neither of these points mean I'm fast on a liter bike in any way.
My conundrum is that general consensus is the rsvr is easily smoked by any newer liter bike and is a bit lacking in power to weight at this point. So if I'm budgeting 4-8k with wiggle room for the right package, depending on which route I go that can lean into RSV4 territory.
The actual question I should be asking is, what cc class is expected of an amateur getting into racing? Is the 600 range typical? 300 now that there is a high availability of models? Or is it not unheard of to jump right into 1000cc classes if I ever get fast on it?
Thanks to this thread I will be expecting to budget 5k+ for a race season when it comes to it, but now I'm trying to decide what the right bike is for both fun on the track and race.
There is no 'expected amateur class'. You've got guys going up through the ranks on moto 3 bikes, 300s, 650s, 600s, 1000s... pick your poison and rock it. As much as I am not a fan of SVs personally, they are a staple of US road racing in pretty much every series you can think of which means that:
A) You can get into a race ready one for cheap.
B) There is LOADS of setup info on them.
C) Spares can be found in minutes no matter where you are because there are so many around.
D) Lots of classes to race them in, so even if you're not contesting the pointy end of the race you'll have similar machines to battle against.
And the classes tend to have lots of entries. Don't get me wrong, I raced a low-buck gen1 SV because it was cheap. But almost always having someone (or a couple someones) to race really set the hook. I had a lot of fun racing LW at LRRS. My only regret is they changed the ULSB rule after I quit. That race looked like huge fun.
I'd race a 300 as well. Those look fun too and appeal to my low-buck standards. Although I still think a used SV is cheaper than a used 300.
I would not want to race MW or HW at LRRS. Particularly as a novice. As a LW novice I picked up a couple MW races just for the extra track time, as there are so few races available to NVs. In those races I was front row to some... rather interesting things.
I think the number of potential races an SV can put up a fight in is the deciding factor when comparing F300 vs UL/LW to me. F300 is fun, marginally cheaper to do once you get past the initial buy in, but far fewer races you're putting up a fight in.
A little late to this party.
Tire bill on a 300 varies from manufacturer to manufacturer. I remember Woody saying he went through 2 sets a season including track days? That was on an R3. If I wanted to remain competitive on the KTM I was changing rears every other race weekend. I also did a shit ton of practice. I think a big factor is power delivery. The R3 doesn't have the grunt the KTM does. I don't know much about the kawasaki, but I think it's a lot like the R3.
Reality is, the tire bill will be as high or low as you're willing to be comfortable. Asses how much meat is left over and if you're comfortable keep going. But I am like Tony on this... trying to extend the life of a tire to make it "cheap" racing is a false economy because when it fails... you're going to be paying more than the cost of a new tire.
Riding on worn tires is not nearly as dicey as it used to be. There is a lot to be learned from maintaining laptimes as the tires start to go off. That said, fresher is better for raceday.
Tire primadonnas I don't understand. Take offs should have no life left in them IMO.
A big part of racing is a head game. If I loose confidence in my tires, I swap them. They likely have life left in them, don't care.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating changing a tire every race. That's just pouring money down the drain. But often times, a tire will have x% life left at the start of a race weekend. And one might not deem that a risk worth taking.
Now, x% left at the start of the track day.... then why bother putting on a new tire. Ride it until it's bald. OK, not bald but keep wearing it down.
This being said, I am bad about changing to take offs for practice. Time. Effort. etc.
Mmhmm. Tires have a hell of a lot room... I tend to be quicker on a set of well used tires vs brand new.
It's all in my head I'm sure
Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk