Posts
4400
Joined
8/15/2006
Location
Fresno, CA
US
Edited Date/Time
2/9/2012 7:46am
What do you guys think? Was the production rule of 1986 a good move or a bad one? Wasn't the rationale behind the rule to "level the playing field" and eliminate the "unfair advantage" that factory riders had over the privateers? I can guarantee you it did accomplish that but didn't it also slow down the evolution of the bikes? Orrrrrr, did it actually speed UP the evolution of the bikes by forcing the MFGs to sell kick ass machines to us schmucks that can barely even ride?
Hmmmmmm.
Hmmmmmm.
Not to mention that the technology on modern motocross bikes is old hat. There are hardly any technological innovations that have not been standard industrial practice for years and years. I mean fuel injection is considered high-tech? It's been standard on economy cars for 20 years.
Weren't the suzukis that Barnett rode pretty good (pre-production rule)?
The Shop
Glover won the title in 85 on that piece of crap. Quite a feat.
I guess you can thank Yamaha for the production rule.
Bailey: "Because their works bikes sucked! They're like 'we're going to ride production bikes- that's how good our production bikes are.' The truth was that their works bikes were horrible, and the guys liked the production bikes better. And then, because they did well, someone got the idea that maybe it will make racing cheaper, and it will give the privateers a chance to keep up with the pros. But whoever is going to win is going to win. I don't care if they are riding that chainsaw over there or a shopping cart, they're going to find a way to manufacture enough speed to get to the finish line first. So, the results didn't change. Just the intrigue of the bikes, and the development process slowed way down. "
The bikes would be substanstially better than they are now IMO and it wouldnt change the racing
if anything..MX needs to go more NASCAR to keep the price down.
the 250F class isn't a stepping class anymore....who the fuck can afford to keep a race prepped 250F running all season?
TLD, Factory Connection & PC and maybe a few others..
IMO, the stock bikes are pretty damn good.
I think the gap between factory and privateer team is pretty slim these days in regards to accesbility to tech..but the difference between a small team and a factory team is the $$ for R&D.
JGR is an example of a strong team that has factory backing but they do their own R&D bc they have money to do it.
I mean, if they had left it the way it was, the bikes made by the MFGs for guys like Bradshaw, Stanton, etc. to ride would have continued to evolve at a fast rate but that the production bikes sold to the general public would have stayed somewhat stagnant, right?
On the production rule?....EVERY rider wanted to get on a factory team to ride the exotica available, it was a great source of motivation to ride the shit out of a proddy bike till it fell apart, just to prove his worth to ride the hot shit. That was the appeal of the works bike.
Aside from the lack of overall development of bikes since then, the exile of works bikes has kept the sport in the dark ages.
Imagine F1 ruling teams can only use OEM parts from established car manufacturers...the sport would die upon that announcement.
Idealy, imagine the factories running EFI 2 stroke exotica for its top riders....of course, boat anchor thumpers would have to be eliminated....oh yeah, and the sport will become affordable again...and a shit load more fun to go racing!...isnt that whats happening out in the real world?...4 strokes are being replaced by affordable 2 strokes by the bulk of dirtbike riders these days. I know I got one because I'd hate to pay for a 4stroke rebuild.
Factories like Puch were starting to field multi cylinder race bikes in the GPs.
Imagine a two cylinder, 125cc race bikes that could easily turn 20,000 rpms.
The FIM had concerns that the bikes were getting too complicated and hard to ride. There MAY have been pressure from the Japanese OEMs too because they didn't want to R&D down that line.
It may have been because they were starting to dominate or maybe they believed that super hyper race bikes like that would be hard to sell, whichever the case was, the FIM passed a single cylinder rule.
A year or two later Hannah busted on to the scene and turned into a Yamaha's marketing team wet dream when he chose to race a stock '77 yz 250. For those that aren't familiar with this morsel of moto history, Hannah would show up to race an event, win (22 straight motos/mains) and then often give the bike away.
Keith McCarthy (his mechanic at the time) would get another new YZ, put a longer shifter on it, and replace the spoke strips on the rim with duct tape and they would be off to the next round.
Fast forward to the mid 80's. The production rule goes into affect.
Back then (like now) there were arguments that the sport would lose some of its appeal because we would lose the "exotic" factor.
I remember that I could have cared less about the exotic machines.
I wanted to see RJ and DB prove that they were the best riders out there, not that they were on superior machinery.
I see several members here arguing that the rule has held back development for year (even decades). You say that like it is a bad thing.
Look where we are. Four strokes that are truly technical marvels. Tuning fuel injection trackside with a laptop. Teams testing "traction control".
It amazing how far our sport has come and scary to think where we would be if the production rule hadn't slowed down the evolution.
Every time I throw a coin in a wishing well or blow out the candles on a birthday cake I close my eyes and wish that future generations could enjoy the simple pleasure of just riding.
Riding without having to worry about an hour meter. Riding rain or shine.
Our sport is being priced out of reach of future generations and that is a real pity.
The other thing is that the bikes have evolved to the point where only some kind of superhuman can ride the machines anywhere close to their potential. Even that is often an iffy proposition because the price when it is pushed too far is pretty steep.
Just refer to the RacerX injury report for proof.
In summary, I do not think that the production rule has been a bad thing except that it was not strict enough.
Bikes have evolved to the point where expense, technological complexity, and speed capability have become detrimental to the health and future of the sport.
10-4 on that buddy. I think its funny that about 7 years ago when Hando had his 250 smoker, he was making about $10 an hour over summer break in high school and that was enough to keep me going all summer. i rode 3 times a week and hit a pay-for track maybe twice a week depending on the weather. that bike never let me down as i took care of it (oil changes and airfilters are cheap compared to oil & oil filter changes every 3 hours, airfilters twice a day..lol)
all of my friends had 2-strokes and we didnt have to worry about throwing a valve or any of that nonsese...if a bike blew up we threw a new piston in it, that was that.
shit...i remember i broke a ring on my kx80, sent the cylinder to eric gorr and got it all fixed for like $250.
if i had a 4-stroke i dont think id be able to ride that much without spending alot more $$...
i used to scalp used tires from the local racers as they would toss them after 4 motos or so...............
i actually like 4-strokes...they have their place..in automobiles and streetbikes (sorrry to all the haters but my f4i always starts, gets 30 MPG and has a smooth as silk powerband which is crucial for street riding)
Post a reply to: Production Rule Poll: Good or Bad for the Sport?