Do technological advancements make for better racing???

Hank_Thrill
Posts
4502
Joined
9/22/2008
Location
Arlen, TX US
1/20/2011 10:54am Edited Date/Time 10/30/2018 7:05pm




Do technological improvements make for more exciting racing in supercross/motocross, or do they diminish it? For example: as more technological advancements are made in the sport, will closer racing, more battles, be a result? What are your thoughts and comments?

I'm just curious... and figured it would be a healthy discussion. All I know is that for any sport to thrive, it must be exciting to it's audience. This even includes those who have never participated in said sport.

This is not limited (or intended) to the 2-stroke vs. 4-stroke debate, but directed more towards EFI, traction control, holeshot devices, GPS type data systems, and all the future technological advancements that are soon to come (like, possibly laser sensor suspension that are popping up on cars).
|
Karma
Posts
877
Joined
9/14/2009
Location
CA
1/20/2011 11:13am Edited Date/Time 1/20/2011 11:14am
Nope.

put 20 pros all on stock KX 80's with beefed up suspension and watch the all out mayhem, carnage, and flat-out, wide -open, bar to bar racing all the way to the checkered flag!
7
Shawn142
Posts
2598
Joined
10/27/2008
Location
Burleson, TX US
1/20/2011 11:18am
To me not at all. While MX has no direct comparison to F1 look at how that sport suffers from lack of passing and competition between the top and mid/low tier teams. MX is unique in that talent can make up for a bad bike. In most other racing sports talent is simply not enough to overcome power or handling advantages others might have.

A rift between factories and privateers has been made less obvious by the years, but back in 2-stroke days a factory bike was a weapon that couldn't be matched by any outside guy even with money.

In my humble opinion the real answer to close no excuses racing is spec bikes. Put everyone on the exact same thing and let talent decide. Of course that doesn't sell bikes and would never work outside of something like Moto2 (spec 600cc Honda motor). But let me tell you, Moto2 is the most exciting racing I watch now. And even it has small technical issues. Some chassis' worked better than others. It was must less obvious but there was still a haves and have-nots situation.

2
moto314
Posts
892
Joined
10/20/2009
Location
Mooresville, NC US
1/20/2011 11:20am
Nope, but everybody wants to have an edge over the competition
1
Mod Killer
Posts
1829
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Worldwide, CA US
1/20/2011 11:26am Edited Date/Time 1/20/2011 11:31am
this isnt a problem unique to mx. its a constant topic in F1 and MotoGP



the problem isnt tech advancement. the problem is when the tech starts reaching the performance ceiling created by the technical regulations.



F1 never had a problem when it was wide open. but in the last 10 years, theyve made more and more rules, and its not even F1 in spirit anymore. and as a result, the show, the racing, the spectacle, has all been hurt. the tech is bouncing off the rev limiter of the regs so to speak.



drop all f1 regs, go unlimited engine configuration, enlist a budget cap that all teams can afford, and start going 300mph, and then you can have all the telemetry/gps/tc in the world and it wont help the driver. and the show will be spectacular.



good racing happens when the racecraft and tracks are far faster/more difficult - than can be humanly ridden imo.



MotoGP has the same issue. many will say that tc and telemetry has hurt the spectacle over time. not so imo. lowering the cc's and limiting development has hurt the spectacle. go back to 1000cc bikes going 220mph that simply destroy tires, and the good racing will come back.



curbing tech/hp/cc's/advancement is not the answer, its the problem.



but then you have to start looking at why these rules even exist. something as simple as cc limits, which pretty much everyone accepts as a normal part of racing are the biggest joke of all. displacement is the cheapest form of hp there is. by creating a limit of cc, you make the sport far more expensive than it has to be, make it very difficult for small mfg's to compete and privateers are just grid fillers. and the kicker, is it allows the bigger teams to cheat. thats why the tech rules exist in the first place, not to level the playing field, but so that some can break rules that others cant. and if you dont believe that, youve never worked closely with any oem that has big sanctioning body influence.





drop the rules, and the tech advancement will be something we can all go back to marveling at instead of vilifying as something that has hurt racing.
1

The Shop

Mod Killer
Posts
1829
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Worldwide, CA US
1/20/2011 11:30am
Shawn142 wrote:
To me not at all. While MX has no direct comparison to F1 look at how that sport suffers from lack of passing and competition between...
To me not at all. While MX has no direct comparison to F1 look at how that sport suffers from lack of passing and competition between the top and mid/low tier teams. MX is unique in that talent can make up for a bad bike. In most other racing sports talent is simply not enough to overcome power or handling advantages others might have.

A rift between factories and privateers has been made less obvious by the years, but back in 2-stroke days a factory bike was a weapon that couldn't be matched by any outside guy even with money.

In my humble opinion the real answer to close no excuses racing is spec bikes. Put everyone on the exact same thing and let talent decide. Of course that doesn't sell bikes and would never work outside of something like Moto2 (spec 600cc Honda motor). But let me tell you, Moto2 is the most exciting racing I watch now. And even it has small technical issues. Some chassis' worked better than others. It was must less obvious but there was still a haves and have-nots situation.

moto2 works only cause the tires suck.

put everyone on the same bike, and you have no equalizer.

if the bike isnt part of the equation, and you want it all about the racer, then go watch track and field.


with equal racecraft, the field will spread out quickly, and you make making up ground near impossible. it puts a unfair weight on the start of the race, and makes the rest of the race pretty much follow the leader.

spec series are great for amateurs who cant handle the equipment they are on. but a big mistake for professionals who can ride the craft to their limits.


1/20/2011 11:38am
I would say no, because it just separates the guys on Factory bikes, and teams that have money, from guys (privateers) with barely enough money to race let alone , some fancy new gadgets.
Cody24
Posts
780
Joined
11/15/2009
Location
Bend, OR US
Fantasy
2673rd
1/20/2011 12:25pm
Shawn142 wrote:
To me not at all. While MX has no direct comparison to F1 look at how that sport suffers from lack of passing and competition between...
To me not at all. While MX has no direct comparison to F1 look at how that sport suffers from lack of passing and competition between the top and mid/low tier teams. MX is unique in that talent can make up for a bad bike. In most other racing sports talent is simply not enough to overcome power or handling advantages others might have.

A rift between factories and privateers has been made less obvious by the years, but back in 2-stroke days a factory bike was a weapon that couldn't be matched by any outside guy even with money.

In my humble opinion the real answer to close no excuses racing is spec bikes. Put everyone on the exact same thing and let talent decide. Of course that doesn't sell bikes and would never work outside of something like Moto2 (spec 600cc Honda motor). But let me tell you, Moto2 is the most exciting racing I watch now. And even it has small technical issues. Some chassis' worked better than others. It was must less obvious but there was still a haves and have-nots situation.

Formula one doesn't suffer at all. It's the most expensive form of auto/motorsport racing in the world. But I do agree that it is not as intense to watch as it were in the past. Hopefully moto doesn't head that way, I dont see it doing that though. There will always be another "James Stewart" coming up through the ranks. Technology wont kill the racing. If anything it will help the privateers go faster.
SteveS
Posts
5600
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
WV US
1/20/2011 12:40pm
All comes down to what you mean by "better racing".

Technology can make for faster cars/bikes/laptimes, easier riding/driving, higher limits.

But does that lead to better racing? If better racing means races which are interesting or exciting to watch because the outcome is in question for much of the race, or the relative positions of the racers changes frequently, then you'd have to say technology does not make for better racing.
Pdub
Posts
1478
Joined
8/2/2006
Location
Wheaton, MD US
1/20/2011 1:45pm
I don't think it's useful to compare top-tier auto racing to the basement-tech that is motocross. But for what it's worth, the F1 teams are already capable of making the cars too fast to safely drive, so some regulations are needed just to protect the drivers.

But back to OUR sport, there seem to be two streams of tech: that developed solely for MX, and hand-me-down tech from the vastly superior road racing side of the motorcycle sport house. Take long travel suspension as an example of a core MX tech, and fuel injection as an example of tech adopted from road bikes. I think F.I. is great; the idea of customized ignition maps and adjusting the mix on the fly in real time beats the snot outta changing jets and checking plugs.

I guess my take is that tech advancements make for better MOTORCYCLES, and since I like to buy and ride 'em, that makes me happy. The racing is less important.
motomike137
Posts
6886
Joined
4/22/2010
Location
Fenton, MI US
1/20/2011 2:11pm
Mod Killer wrote:
moto2 works only cause the tires suck. put everyone on the same bike, and you have no equalizer. if the bike isnt part of the equation...
moto2 works only cause the tires suck.

put everyone on the same bike, and you have no equalizer.

if the bike isnt part of the equation, and you want it all about the racer, then go watch track and field.


with equal racecraft, the field will spread out quickly, and you make making up ground near impossible. it puts a unfair weight on the start of the race, and makes the rest of the race pretty much follow the leader.

spec series are great for amateurs who cant handle the equipment they are on. but a big mistake for professionals who can ride the craft to their limits.


Mod Killer you make a great argument for at least keeping the 450's! Instead of more rules there should be less at the pro level. One thing here though is that ours is a very unique motorsport in that the rider is a much larger part of the equation between man(or woman) and machine and also the manufacturers participate to actually sell us darn near the same bike that you see on the track. To me in a perfect world you maintain the "near" production rules we have today and set a price ceiling that you can sell the bikes to the public at. Let the manufacturers do what ever they want within reason but they have to produce x amount of bikes with 90% of the content the factory bikes have y cost to the consumer. Some of the interesting ideas being floated in big time 4 wheel racing include opening up the rules but severely limiting fuel allotment for a given race.I don't think that would apply very well to MX but there can be other ways to keep it affordable for us but yet allow for innovation. So do I think technology makes the racing better? No, but I don't think it hurts it either in MX. It is much more about track construction and who is twisting the throttle. Maybe we need to make guys like James and RV ride one handed or something...lol!
thatdad
Posts
229
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
US
1/20/2011 2:12pm
The bikes get faster but the human body is the same. The tracks get adapted to the new technology but when the riders crash from higher and faster, the bodies can't take it. The current supercross racing series is pretty good so far but if two of the top guys get hurt it will get boring real quick.

And, without starting this all over again, I hate to say that the four strokes just are not as much fun to watch.
motomike137
Posts
6886
Joined
4/22/2010
Location
Fenton, MI US
1/20/2011 2:20pm
Pdub wrote:
I don't think it's useful to compare top-tier auto racing to the basement-tech that is motocross. But for what it's worth, the F1 teams are already...
I don't think it's useful to compare top-tier auto racing to the basement-tech that is motocross. But for what it's worth, the F1 teams are already capable of making the cars too fast to safely drive, so some regulations are needed just to protect the drivers.

But back to OUR sport, there seem to be two streams of tech: that developed solely for MX, and hand-me-down tech from the vastly superior road racing side of the motorcycle sport house. Take long travel suspension as an example of a core MX tech, and fuel injection as an example of tech adopted from road bikes. I think F.I. is great; the idea of customized ignition maps and adjusting the mix on the fly in real time beats the snot outta changing jets and checking plugs.

I guess my take is that tech advancements make for better MOTORCYCLES, and since I like to buy and ride 'em, that makes me happy. The racing is less important.
Pdub i think you are being a little harsh when you say we have basement tech in MX. There is a lot more tech in these bikes than you realize, a lot of which is in things like frame design, suspension, engine specs, materials, and a lot of little things that don't jump out at you. Obviously we are no F1 and have a set of rules in place that limits certain things and the manufacturers have a certain business model they have to follow. And you have to be cautious about adding "technology" just for the sake of doing it, it can do things like drive up cost and add complexity that we really don't need to go out and race and ride these bikes.
Dropbear
Posts
1571
Joined
5/7/2008
Location
Adelaide AU
1/20/2011 2:39pm
No, apart from "Long Travel Suspension" in the '70's that made things a bit safer for riders, it makes no difference. Just more things to fix.

1/20/2011 2:50pm
You already have tech differenced between the haves and have nots. Any additional tech advances just makes that gap larger.

F1 got rid of traction control to reduce cost and to make the cars more competitive. Did it work? Somewhat. I think this year was one of the best racing we have had on the last 5 years, but you still only had 4 teams that ran up front.

Traction control and anti-lock brakes make a much bigger sense on a car than they do a dirt bike. However knowing the points where wheel spin are created so you can determine if you want to have more or less power/rpm's at that specific point would be a good thing to know if you are planning on changing gear ratios a lot.

The factory bikes have several engine mapping settings available to the rider. They all relate to changing how the power the engine creates gets to the ground. Sounds like a form of traction control to me. Heck, you could argue the case that changing from a 2-stroke motor to a 4-stroke motor changed how torque was delivered to the rear wheel. Sounds like traction control to me as well...lol

So does tech make for better racing? Maybe not in all cases, but it sure can make it more interesting!
1/20/2011 4:34pm
lol at the f1 guys.

The 'racing' in F1 sucks. What's the average number of lead changes per race, like three, maybe?
It's a tech spectacle but not much 'racing'.
1
offspring22
Posts
415
Joined
6/12/2008
Location
Closer Than You Think, CA US
1/20/2011 4:38pm
They make for more injuries.

Bikes are outpacing riders. Now, any idiot can crack a 450 open and go with it for a while, but when things get jiggy, they don't know what to do.

Bikes need to be less intelligent. They need to be harder to ride.
1
Pdub
Posts
1478
Joined
8/2/2006
Location
Wheaton, MD US
1/20/2011 4:52pm
You are right, motomike137, I was being overly harsh.
FlickitFlat
Posts
3014
Joined
8/15/2006
Location
,, WV US
Fantasy
595th
1/20/2011 4:53pm
I was actually thinking about this subject while Christmas shopping for my Dad. I was at a hunting and fishing supply store and was looking at the new bows they have out now. I used to love shooting bow and arrow, either target shooting or hunting. I would spend whole days as a kid shooting in the back yard or whole weeks as a teenager hunting. For a long time bows got more and more expensive and every year something new and better came along. Pretty soon you couldn't keep up and I quit. It is crazy now. Bows are so fast so accurate that it isn't even fun anymore. Not to mention they are very very expensive.
It was during this, the thought that I hope motocross doesn't go the same route crossed my mind as I see bikes getting faster and easier to ride and also very very expensive.
motomike137
Posts
6886
Joined
4/22/2010
Location
Fenton, MI US
1/20/2011 6:20pm
Pdub wrote:
You are right, motomike137, I was being overly harsh.
I hope I wasn't too harsh calling you harsh...lol!
1/20/2011 6:31pm
No. Creates another dimension to racing: cash flow. Better tech costs more money.

Those with disposable income are more likely to have better performing bikes than those pitting out of a beat up '82 dodge van..

On the flip side..

The factories are likely to have much better performance than the guys with "disposable income".

People had just as much fun racing air cooled twin shocks. I hear the racing was pretty good too.
txmxer
Posts
9770
Joined
8/21/2006
Location
Weatherford, TX US
1/20/2011 6:45pm
When riders can outperform the machinery you get better racing.
jmar
Posts
14159
Joined
2/11/2007
Location
Oklahoma City, OK US
1/20/2011 6:56pm
Some of the best races that I have ever seen was at the "Race of Champions" at the World Mini in Vegas. All of the top mini riders identical stock KX minis.

Think how cool it would be to do something similar in at the pro level class.

Blake
Posts
2934
Joined
9/11/2009
Location
CA US
1/20/2011 8:02pm
jmar wrote:
Some of the best races that I have ever seen was at the "Race of Champions" at the World Mini in Vegas. All of the top...
Some of the best races that I have ever seen was at the "Race of Champions" at the World Mini in Vegas. All of the top mini riders identical stock KX minis.

Think how cool it would be to do something similar in at the pro level class.

Didnt know they still do that. Thats awesome.
1
ando
Posts
3039
Joined
8/20/2009
Location
Perth AU
1/20/2011 9:11pm
Whether it makes for closer racing is debatable, as there are many other factors, including rider skill which is a far bigger factor than most other motorsports. However it is still motorsport and the AMA SX series is arguably the pinnacle of the sport. For me that means that I want to see the best machinery the sport can offer as well as the best riders.

Technical rules may exist for many reasons but rarely are they effective at producing close racing across the field. As soon as there is any interpretation of rules or room to maneuvre the team with the most money/effort/technical know-how will gain some sort of advantage. That has always happened and always will. Even in F1 which many believe is over-regulated there is a massive gap in machine capability between the front and back of the grid. The only way you could truly acheive equality in SX/MX is if the AMA went and bought 80 CRF450's, gave them out at the start of each weekend and took them back at the end.

In any event it probably wouldn't affect the order of the field that much. Top riders are still the top riders, whether they're on works bikes, spec bikes or postie bikes. Factories put money into their machines not to beat the 20th place guy but to try and beat the other top 5 guys on factory equipment. So they might end up 30 secs ahead instead of 20 secs ahead of the rest of the pack, but really who notices?
1
Mod Killer
Posts
1829
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Worldwide, CA US
1/21/2011 2:30am
Mod Killer wrote:
moto2 works only cause the tires suck. put everyone on the same bike, and you have no equalizer. if the bike isnt part of the equation...
moto2 works only cause the tires suck.

put everyone on the same bike, and you have no equalizer.

if the bike isnt part of the equation, and you want it all about the racer, then go watch track and field.


with equal racecraft, the field will spread out quickly, and you make making up ground near impossible. it puts a unfair weight on the start of the race, and makes the rest of the race pretty much follow the leader.

spec series are great for amateurs who cant handle the equipment they are on. but a big mistake for professionals who can ride the craft to their limits.


Mod Killer you make a great argument for at least keeping the 450's! Instead of more rules there should be less at the pro level. One...
Mod Killer you make a great argument for at least keeping the 450's! Instead of more rules there should be less at the pro level. One thing here though is that ours is a very unique motorsport in that the rider is a much larger part of the equation between man(or woman) and machine and also the manufacturers participate to actually sell us darn near the same bike that you see on the track. To me in a perfect world you maintain the "near" production rules we have today and set a price ceiling that you can sell the bikes to the public at. Let the manufacturers do what ever they want within reason but they have to produce x amount of bikes with 90% of the content the factory bikes have y cost to the consumer. Some of the interesting ideas being floated in big time 4 wheel racing include opening up the rules but severely limiting fuel allotment for a given race.I don't think that would apply very well to MX but there can be other ways to keep it affordable for us but yet allow for innovation. So do I think technology makes the racing better? No, but I don't think it hurts it either in MX. It is much more about track construction and who is twisting the throttle. Maybe we need to make guys like James and RV ride one handed or something...lol!
the rider is a larger part of the equation in mx, because the tracks have gotten harder over time to match the technology of the bikes.

at one time, in both road racing and F1, the driver was the bigger factor there as well. when the rules began being restricted, the less the driver has become a factor over time.
Mod Killer
Posts
1829
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Worldwide, CA US
1/21/2011 2:34am
Pdub wrote:
I don't think it's useful to compare top-tier auto racing to the basement-tech that is motocross. But for what it's worth, the F1 teams are already...
I don't think it's useful to compare top-tier auto racing to the basement-tech that is motocross. But for what it's worth, the F1 teams are already capable of making the cars too fast to safely drive, so some regulations are needed just to protect the drivers.

But back to OUR sport, there seem to be two streams of tech: that developed solely for MX, and hand-me-down tech from the vastly superior road racing side of the motorcycle sport house. Take long travel suspension as an example of a core MX tech, and fuel injection as an example of tech adopted from road bikes. I think F.I. is great; the idea of customized ignition maps and adjusting the mix on the fly in real time beats the snot outta changing jets and checking plugs.

I guess my take is that tech advancements make for better MOTORCYCLES, and since I like to buy and ride 'em, that makes me happy. The racing is less important.
the F1 cars used to be to fast to safely drive, and the spectacle was better because the drivers made more mistakes. more mistakes = more passing.

safety has and never will be a real concern to any racer. the fact that they stare death in the face and taunt it, is what makes them international heroes.

it is very fair to compare top tier motorsports. i think it would be short sighted to think that the principles of racing differ that much from sport to sport.


a big factor that has helped the spectacle of mx over the years, is that as the tech has advanced on the bikes, so have the difficulty of the tracks.

that said, the technology increases are great, so long as the tracks get increasingly harder to match.
thatdad
Posts
229
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
US
1/21/2011 5:01am
Dropbear wrote:
No, apart from "Long Travel Suspension" in the '70's that made things a bit safer for riders, it makes no difference. Just more things to fix.

So we ended up with doubles and triples and whoop de doos turned into whoops you can disappear into.

That being said, some of the bikes from the 70s were just junk and could kill you quickly.


Indy mxer
Posts
1632
Joined
6/15/2010
Location
Linton, IN US
1/21/2011 5:51am
A lot of good points here.

I know this probably would never happen.
But, it would be interesting to see a race where all the riders had to ride stock 450, set up specifically for them, just to see if the racing would be any closer.
I know the fast guys would still be up front and win. But I wonder if it would close things up and make the racing better.
I'm not saying I want them to race stock bikes, but it would tell us how much is the rider and how much is the bike.
Just wishful thinking.

1
rocrac
Posts
2454
Joined
8/15/2006
Location
Indianapolis, IN US
1/21/2011 6:06am
Would anyone besides me like to see the current crop of 450 riders dicing it out on 250 s?

I would bet the racing would be twice is good watching those guys ringing the crap out of them. The 450's should be left to fat lazy old guys (myself Included)
2

Post a reply to: Do technological advancements make for better racing???

The Latest