Only Matt's. To bad, first Hayes, now this. I hate seeing someones accomplishments diminished like this. Mladin has been riding really well, now some will think it was only the benefit of the crank. It would be nice to know if it was a performance or reliability benefit or just a detail screw up.
From the latest I saw on superbikeplanet it looks like the stripped down engine's crank somehow looks different and AMA is asking the team to demonstrate the crank is from a production engine. No one is saying how it looks different. My guess right now is that the Yoshimura team didn't "alter" the crank and received it as part of the engine from Suzuki Japan; so, if its different it was likely modified overseas or at least not by the Yosh team. Don't forget this is the AMA that would disqualify a guy for cleaning valves with a Sctoch Brite pad and partially round off some machining marks which produced absolutely no performance benefit short of removing the baked on carbon.
Yosh is responcable for the parts are in the engines Matt, Ben & Tommy get. If some bonehead at AMA can SEE that they are different then what does that say about the engine guys at Yosh. According to the write up from AMA the crankshaft in Matt bike at VIR and the shafts in his and Tommy's at Road Atlanta (as compared to 3 cranks sent to AMA out of 2 batches): Noticable color difference The finish on the bob weights was diffenent The raduis of the edges of the bob weights were diffenent The crank info stamped and etched by a machine were done by hand instead. Tommy's crank had no info at all on it These are supose to be stock OEM parts that anyone can get. There is no secert the factorys hand pick there parts and even get parts that outside production tolerances (ie cheater parts), but shame on them for not being smart enough to make sure they have all the stock marking and numbers.
There's too much we don't know. As Ben is on the same team I'd think the crank in his bike would be the same. No? From what I could understand its just that the AMA didn't tear down Ben's bike past the head. I agree on everything else per the rules. Per Hayes, Extra time in a vibratory tumbler to produce a smoother finish results in a part that can take more abuse before breaking; hence, performance advantage. If production bike don't get this time then neither should a superbike if by the rules the part is to be stock. I also find it funny how teams say they look through the factory stock for the "best parts" and then the factory in its PR says how perfect its manufacturing process is so that all the frames, heads, engines, etc.... are essentially identical. Sounds fishy, no? This is like Richard Petty's last Daytona 500 victory and when the tear the engine apart find it to displace 410 cid, not the mandated maximum of 358 cid. Not a mistake.
More on the issue here: http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2008/Sep/080909yq.htm I wonder why they didn't strip down Ben's bike? Or did they and it didn't make the press? I recall reading Ben's bike had the head removed and the process stopped there.
more details presented Here's more, from Suzuki's side. http://www.motorcycledaily.com/12september08_suzukiappeal.htm Read the two attachments too. P.S. Based on the Falicon analysis, Mat's crank when compared to the "A" part would have minor performance dis-advantages. :shock: