I never could figure out the tire thing, MotoGP bikes run more laps without tire changes with more power & higher speeds. What's the deal, why don't they apply the same compounds to superbikes?

Is the nominal MotoGP race 200 miles? (I don't know....so not rhetorical). And todays liter bikes aren't all that far off a MotoGP 800 are they? Plus the high speed banking evidently does special things to just one side of the tire....Daytona isn't symmetric.

Anyway....I recall guys shreading tires and wrecking at Daytona. So the mandatory pit stop thing may just be the solution.

Isn't the average length of a MotoGP track about 3 miles? And run about 20, 25 laps? So that's about 60 to 75 miles. The Daytona 200 is 200 miles. If, repeat IF these numbers are close then 3 pit stops would be about right for the 200.

Not to mention Mat Mladin already proved that you can be faster while still taking an extra pit because your times dont fall off as much as the tires wear. He did it faster, and safer, with an extra pit.... go figure.

edit after I saw jdukes post:
I believe the 200 is about 57 or so laps. Typical lap strategies had them pitting around lap 19 and 40... or so.

What I was referring to was that motogp tires last more laps or miles on a faster more powerful machine than tires used on AMA bikes ie less tires or pit stops needed. Superbikes were avereraging about 18-20 laps between stops yet motogp were lasting an entire race of more laps. Also the tires were failing on the superbikes yet not on motogp bikes at higher speeds.

Do you remember how well Dunlop did while in MotoGP?
Dunlop was almost exclusively the sole supplier to the AMA

Daytona is a unique track that generates stresses unlike any other. You need a tire constructed for a specific purpose, which is entirely different for any other track in the world.

The tire budgets for the pinnacle of motorsports(MotoGP) are entirely different than the tire budgets in a National series.

So more pit stops solves the problem not switching to lower powered 600s. AMA lost me when they dropped the superbikes as the main show and from the 200 esp when Duhamel started threatening for the title of Mr. Daytona. Fortunately the curse of the Screaming Chief prevented him from ever lifting that laurel. :D

I see on RoadracingWorld (I think that's where I saw it, anyway) that Roger Edmundson is out as manager of CanAm cars, too - maybe DMG actually saw the light?? At this point, 2010 is probably a write-off for AMA Roadracing - hopefully the series can recover for 2011. We'll see.

It's all relative, Bob... if you consider the distance from here to Alpha Centauri "not far", then they are not, no...

I meant in power. Today's liter race bikes make over 200 hp, don't they? And how much does an 800 make?

Oh, sorry.... well, they still are some 10%+ off with a significant difference in power delivery and characteristics. Weight becomes a big factor here as well... sprung and unsprung.

RE the performance similarity between MotoGP and current liter-bike production stuff -

a recent editorial column by Michael Scott in Cycle News (one of my favorite parts of the mag) commented that at the last Phillip Island race, an Aussie Superbike racer - I'm embarrassed to say I don't remember his name - turned race laps on his CBR1000 faster than Chris V.'s Suzuki qualifying lap, and Vermulien (sp?) wasn't the slowest qualifier. Same track, same day, same conditions - hmmm.

The GP and SBKs are a LONG ways from each other in technology, but not much in execution and power and times. 1000CCs of fairly high tech isn't far off of 800CCs of extremely high tech.
Most of the difference is down to a bit of electronics, the weight, and of course the riders.
When the GPs move back to 1000cc, and a bit more cost limitations, then those 3 things will be about it, period.

It's a diminishing returns thing. Look, in similar spec, 1000s aren't that much faster, laptime wise, than 600s. Close to 100% more displacement, and less than 5% faster.
Given that the MotoGP bikes and their tech have to overcome a 200cc displacement disadvantage, it's not surprising they're not much quicker. It takes a LOT of extra skill and technology to go even a bit faster, the moreso when spotting those 200cc

Racetrack execution with <1000CCs of fairly high tech isn't far off of 800CCs of extremely high tech.>

I completely agree - now if rules would let the SBK crowd peel off a little more weight, we might have a battle between the series. Regardless, I'm glad to see MotoGP going back to 1000s, and maybe the limited engine supplies will drive more of the research & development towards something that actually applies directly to us non-alien street folk.

Back to the original topic - Edmundson's departure from AMA Racing - I'm not sure DMG has enough interest in motorcycles to dig into their pockets for a rescue package. I don't see US roadracing getting back to world caliber in the next several years.