Posts
4502
Joined
9/22/2008
Location
Arlen, TX
US
Hank_Thrill
1/20/2011 10:54am
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).
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!
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.
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.
The Shop
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.
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.
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.
And, without starting this all over again, I hate to say that the four strokes just are not as much fun to watch.
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!
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'.
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.
Pit Row
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.
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.
Think how cool it would be to do something similar in at the pro level class.
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?
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.
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.
That being said, some of the bikes from the 70s were just junk and could kill you quickly.
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.
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)
Post a reply to: Do technological advancements make for better racing???