Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
Seriously what ideas do you guys have that are better than what the AMA/FIM is doing for dealing with the threat of track closures? They got the manufacturers to deliver 94 db bikes stock for 2011. In comparision what would you have done?
Mr. Macho is correct in stating that no level of sound restriction will satisfy some people. However, some municipalities are easier to work with than others, so it boils down to negotiation and compromise. It's the same with any noise ordinance: if I mow my lawn with a single mower, nobody complains. If I attack it with 20 mowers simultaneously, calls will be made.
As with any situation, waiting for the complaints puts track owners behind the 8-ball. The savvy businessperson might proactively work with the local population to create a "pro community" relationship. Coupled with aggressive sound management and a cooperative spirit we might see fewer track closures in the future. While these actions do not guarantee success, a lack of action will only continue the downward trend.
Which track in Colorado is this? SRAC and RMXA are the two racing organizations in that state, neither has noise restrictions. I am curious if I am so wrong, which track would that be? I missed this earlier, but I grew up in Colo and visit there time to time (will be there for the national in Denver) Which by the way is located in Lakewood up against the mountains next to Bandamere speedway drag race. That track is not getting closed down even though you can see houses from the track (also this track was moved from the center of the city of Lakewood as houses grew, not because of noise, because they wanted to build houses on that land)
First to the issue of bike manufacturers pluggin the exhaust, Almost no one I know has a stock exhaust (except for myself) at the motocross track because (whether it is true or not or just a belief) those stock pipes rob horse power. Second, if one race track started noise testing, I would not go to the track, if an org started noise testing, I would go to another org. Now of course if all orgs and tracks noise tested, I would have to be subjected to noise testing (even though I have a stock exhaust (I refuse to support tracks or orgs that support this type of restriction if possible.
Why? because noise testing is bogus. A bike produces the most noise when wide open under power (not in neutral) most tests do not test this, they test at idle, partially cracked throttle, there are ways (sometimes expensive ways) to get around that and still produce good horsepower yet meet tests. This has no effect on the person complaining in a nearby neighborhood, neither does reducing to 94 db, when 40bike are at full power open throttle at the start of a race. Some guys who I ride my Harley with run straight pipes. At idle and when they are trying to be quite, the noise is not too objectionable at say 100 feet away, but when they crack the throttle, wide open, the noise is almost unbearable (I have to wear ear plugs). But there are laws against this, but it is not enforced and people ride with straight pipes on the street all the time. Point is people are going to complain and taking the db level from 96 to 94 does nothing to stop people who don't their property values lowered by a mx track close to them.
But Rock, I am still interested to hear which track in Colorado is enforcing some sort of noise restrictions or doing noise testing on bikes, just the track name, I will talk the the track owner since I know most of them to find out if he is using any type of noise restriction.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=5759488
Noise is bad for your hearing, but they make these things you're supposed to use around loud noise to protect your ears.
Anything from MXA has little value in a serious discussion, but we don't need them to tell us race cars are loud.
Just remember who's guiding the sport through all this, the same people that gave us shitty fuel standards and loud 8K dirt bikes you can't ride anywhere.
Before you throw someone like Mitch under the bus, consider what he knows about the sport compared to the people that so far never seem to get it quite right.
The Shop
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
I'm sure some on here know what happened, last I heard about it they were asking people to buy a bale of hay so I assume it wasn't so easy to keep customers while placing those kinds of demands on them.
Fast forward to present day and db Dawgs for MX bikes are no longer a requirement for the 2011s but according to Clif Euler at Dirtwerkz who offers them more and more street bike owners utilize them to pass sound days at Laguna Seca In our sport the bikes aren't 100 db plus from the manufacturer like they used to be and majority of pipe companies product are in the 96 to 97 db range without an insert but most provide an insert to reduce noise to 94db.
But carlosmachos I'm also still interested in hearing you, cpj36, 500guy and whoever else disagrees with FIM sound requirements to respond RE: Seriously what ideas do you guys have that are better than what the AMA/FIM is doing for dealing with the threat of track closures? They got the manufacturers to deliver 94 db bikes stock for 2011. In comparision what would you have done?
Easy to sit back and diss the rules but to date all I've heard is opinion and no one has presented any options. If I have missed them please don't shoot me out of the saddle but if you'd be so kind as to repeat them I'd be most appreciative.
EDIT:
High Altitude Motocross Track
Fraser, CO
Loudlove-Short answer is levels were determined with SAE equipment and guidelines established with the input of the industry. Static 94 db test was knocked due to low RPM test levels and 2 M Max test is more real world due to the one second blip of the throttle. 2011 FIM 2 M Max test level is 115 db. If you're interested you can search on J1287 to look at the static test more closely plus search on 2 M Max test to do the same.
Regarding your words: As with any situation, waiting for the complaints puts track owners behind the 8-ball. The savvy businessperson might proactively work with the local population to create a "pro community" relationship. Coupled with aggressive sound management and a cooperative spirit we might see fewer track closures in the future. While these actions do not guarantee success, a lack of action will only continue the downward trend. WELL SAID!
cpj36-Seems in the Internet age if someone holds a contrary position/opinion it can only be due to an agenda in the minds of those who disagree. Like Freud said....sometimes a position is just a position.
The manufacturers are delivering them quieter and that can happen whether the pro class changes or not. Ford delivers a quiet Shelby but only local noise ordinance prevents race track alteration from being used on the streets.
I don't know what more you do at the local level but I can't see the pro class having any more impact at that level than it's having on people with clapped out bikes and blown out mufflers now.
It's going to be up to individuals and track owners but there will always be people that want louder for whatever reason or people that can't afford to be quieter and track owners that can't afford to turn them away. The pro class already has little to no influence on that situation already, I don't see how making them even quieter would change that.
I have a small practice track, I dont live there but I have neighbors within 1/8 mile, have to drive right past them to get in. Zoning is on my side but I try to head off any altercation by not riding too early or late, can't have many friends over and have to water all day to keep the dust away from them.
Did have one pissed off guy lived even further away and it was just general principle thing with him I guess, when he was told he can nothing about us riding he started calling the EPA to check out land use and whatever else. Only time he could hear us is was when he was driving by and he'd have to stop in the road and roll his window down. I'm getting an insert but I have some friends that I'll have to argue with about it even if I bought one for them.
GP exhaust for Dungey won't help me unless he's at my place, but I'm all for it whenever he is.
Found a craigslist entry
May 13, 2011 ... Power World is sponsoring the High Altitude Motocross Track Opening Day Event Saturday, May 14th 10-7 pm -Free Lessons by Local Pros
If this track actually opened at some point, it had many more problems than just noise. Called a few friends, none of them heard of it, I never heard of it, my brother who lives there never heard of it and he races motocross there. As far as we know it was not raced in RMxa or SRAC.
Then I would ask the question, was the track legal and zoned correctly. If not then it was not noise that closed it down because it would have been moved. I wish I had more information because I am not buying that a track that is legal, properly zoned could be closed down (though it could be moved or the owner compensated)
PMI has been in trouble and is no longer raced by a sanctioning body but the last thing I heard was they were going to run a hwy through the middle of it.
Some tracks are experiencing difficulties financially because of the economy with lower turn outs for race or practices.
"But carlosmachos I'm also still interested in hearing yout, cpj36, 500guy and whoever else disagrees with FIM sound requirements to respond RE: Seriously what ideas do you guys have that are better than what the AMA/FIM is doing for dealing with the threat of track closures? They got the manufacturers to deliver 94 db bikes stock for 2011. In comparision what would you have done?"
My idea to curb track closers, owners of tracks need to be legal and zoned correctly. If they are any tracks that are legal and are closed down (not moved or the owner given compensation) I would like to see it documented. When you and someone else on motonews started posting "examples" of tracks being shut down due to noise, I quickly pointed out it was due to them not being legal, you may or may not remember that post.
As you should, if zoning is on your side, I see very little legally for them to shut you down BUT, you should try to be neighborly and try to avoid confrontation if possible.
"when he was told he can nothing about us riding he started calling the EPA to check out land use and whatever else"
That is my point, if you purchase land, it is zoned correctly, the law is on your side. They can grasp for straws looking for liberal tree huggers for help but legally, they really have nothing.
I have heard "legal" tracks trying to be shut down due to dust , which could be a real threa (noise is much more difficult because the measurement of noise must be at the location where the complain was filed in most cases)t. The Pikes Peak hill climb race was threatened in this way saying the dust was damaging the environment, I believe the resolution was to pave the road all the way to the top which ruined the race.
Make sure you keep the dust down.
I would love to hear examples where existing sound levels and the upcoming 2 M Max test have been expensive for our sport locally. Please speak to the economic impact to date of any current sound levels at the local level as well as what future impact will occur locally.
WORCS Series has been on top of noise so can't forget them but with the exception of CA State Parks and D37 Desert GP series sound testing is a myth for the most part. State of Michigan though gets a huge shout out for having 94 db for years now. They're so in front of the curve their off community can ride their MX bikes on public roads all over the Upper Penisula and they never hear a word about dust or lowered property values. The mainly hear the gratitude of the small business owners who serve these off road enthusiasts and increase their revenues.
Look forward to learning how noise restrictions are bad and expensive for our sport locally. In the world of high zoot four strokes with hi compression motors running on race fuel I'm really curious to hear your examples of the economic impact of noise restrictions locally.
Do I understand you correctly the AMA/FIM instead of the steps to 94 db and now 2 M Max they should have been focusing on documenting all track closures? Would it have been better for them to have been focusing on these legal track issues instead of the work they did to get 94 db bikes from the OEM? From my standpoint if the FIM wasn't doing what they're doing several of the GP tracks would be history....from NOISE not dust or zoning issues,
I really want to know where you're coming from on this so there isn't any miscommunication. .
EDIT: Both the 600 and 500 today had surprise finishes....it's for sure not over til the fat lady sings! Common denomimator in both of those races is National Guard teams came within a whisker of winning two huge races including the greatest spectacle in racing.
Lets take the Colo example for the org SRAC. SRAC was not AMA, you only paid like 35 bucks to join SRAC. That org requires the track have insurance for races. Insurance got expensive so they turned AMA which had lower prices for insurance. So now you had to pay to join AMA every year. in addition In other words, the expense was passed on to the consumer/racer. Now if AMA says it is a requirement for all of the organizations under AMA to enforce noise restrictions, that cost and hassle will be passed to smaller orgs. Both RMXA and SRAC do not have tech inspection (which I believe SRAC use to have. The reason it went away is because not enough time, not enough people to inspect every bike before a race. (People would have to be hired for this which would also increase cost and passed along to the rider). With a noise restriction, the track owners would have to purchase noise equip and then on race day perform a check on every motorcycle. This cost would be passed to the riders. Racing motorcycles is one of the few sports that is accessible to even those who don't have a lot of money, it is fairly inexpensive. People that have used bikes and do not pass inspection for noise would be turned away from the race on race day, it would piss them off as customers. Thus the promoter/trackowner would lose money, cost those starting in the sport more money and the promoter. Promoters and track owners would then consider abandoning the AMA because of this restriction. Riders who cannot afford or want more power cheaply buy purchasing a non compliant exhausts system designed for closed course competition (enter Mitch) will go with tracks and orgs that do not have noise restrictions. The AMA would generate less revenue. Just think if they made this restriction to every AMA local org and they all decided to dump the AMA how many riders would save their money and not join the AMA.
So it would be bad for the AMA, it would be bad for the promoter, it would be bad for the rider and it would increase cost in a down economy. Tracks are already seeing lower turnouts as price of gas goes up. I hear it at the track, people complain about the money track owners are charging for practice and racing. IMHO creating noise restrictions would only cost more and make race day a bigger hassle thus reducing the number of returning racers and riders.
Promoters are competing for dollars, but not against each other IMHO, they are competing against trail riding which is free and which motocrossers would turn to if the costs of MX becomes too high or, they just reduce the number of times them practice or race. This hurts track owners trying to pay for insurance, water for track, gas and equip for track prep and employees to run the track.
WORCS Series and desert racing are not true closed course because they often use public land to race, I agree that when land is shared between hikers, bicyclists horses, quads, 4x4 and nature, sound limits are important if we want to keep riding in those areas, this is completely different issue to closed course racing which the landowner purchased a track to race, is zoned correctly and is legally operating his business.
What about AMA pro racing? I am not in that industry so I don't have all the answers but restrictions in almost any business, hurts that business and cost the company more money which is passed on to the consumer. Specific to racing I see it only making it difficult for privateers to compete. If a privateer purchase a stock bike that the manufacturere has restricted to 50db, the easy way to gain HP is to buy a 200 dollar exhaust. But if he can't due to restrictions, he will have to modify the engine extensively. The factory bike will use whatever money and resoruces to gain back HP, but for the privateer it may be cost prohibitive.
I think the problem is, there is propaganda that noise is closing closed course mx track, but it is not true, it is usually track owners that create a track without being correctly zoned, in other words, they are illegal and the gov can shut them down very easily, other wise the owner would be compensated to allow them to move. Lowering noise in the case of an illegal track will do nothing because if the neighbors for whatever reason complain, the track is shut down. If there are true examples where a track is correctly zoned and gov is shutting them down, it would not make any difference if it were 100db, 96db, or even if every bike sold were restricted to an ultra low 94db IMHO.
Well it was not short. People who say, lets just make new laws and rules to correct a problem without thinking about the consequences always hurt the consumer.
I do have a problem with manufacturers putting a quiet pipe on a closed course mx bike (though I am all for it on the WR CRFX trail bikes because those are ridden on public land). It costs me more money to own the mx bike because I now have to replace that pipe with one I purchase from Mitch. Again, the cost is passed down to the consumer.
Rock, have you ever raced motocross? Have you ever been a volunteer in a local racing org or held a board position in an org (especially a smaller one)? Have you ever talked to a local track owner/promoter to understand costs of racing. I doubt if you have or you would understand these issues better.
Pit Row
Would a lower level of noise hurt motocross?
The long part was in answer to "Prove it" which takes a little more time than just Yes.
I disagree. Noise restrictions can easily be implemented at the manufacturer level with minimal cost and the the better sales returns. Any exhaust company can still make high performance systems. Sure they would suffer some performance loss, but at the end of the day, it is the average rider that provides these companies with the monies to have a race team. If there were a new noise restriction on any level, it wouldn't hurt the privateer because the universal model for sound would be the same, thus they would have to only create systems with a certain level of noise.
Before= lot's of bikes and lower noise
Today= few bikes terrible noise
Good we got the noise issue fixed or not?
I have no concern about GPs and FIM, they are different countries with different laws. They may not even have zoning laws and their laws may or may not protect motocross tracks or land owners to do what they want with their land, I don't know and it is not a concern for me, FIM has its own rules and their countries have thier own rules, it has nothing to do with AMA. When AMA starts thinking about adopting its rules then I am concerned.
I will still try to call Bob, but if it is a private track not open to the public then how many people rode on it, if that little amount of noise got it closed down, the if 40 riders hit the gate with 94db pipes, would that have saved the track? Sorry, it wouldn't have.
You missed the point, with a noise restriction, you can gain more HP, only it is more expensive because of engine modification or rare parts, or increasing power to weight, which again using carbon and ti is expensive. I disagree again, Factories would throw ti or special parts at a bike that the privateer cannot afford to work around noise restriction.
Then for what gain, if noise is not really closing tracks and it is because the tracks are illegal and zoned incorrectly, why should we go through all this trouble?
.
Hers the difference!! Nascar is big big business. Dirt Bikes are a nuisance. I have yet to see a Cup Car blow by my house. Dirt Bikes do all day long. I don't mind it but my neighbors do.
People need to realize that we are not Nascar,F1,Indy Cars and on and on.
So lets impose noise rules that will make it more expensive to race and kill off the sport more?
"I have yet to see a Cup Car blow by my house. Dirt Bikes do all day long"
There are laws for that which is why you don't see nascars blowing down your street all day long, there are laws already in place that do not allow closed competitions bikes to blow down your street. There are also laws that prevent land owners from opening an mx track next to a housing community, it is called zoning, and land owners that are not obeying the laws and setting up an mx track should be shut down. Should we lower sound levels on bikes in an attempt to allow them to continue their illegal tracks? I think people don't understand local laws. I also think there are mx riders that ride closed course bikes in areas illegally and piss of home owners. More rules and laws don't effect the lawless only the law abiding.
Your country is liberal, and you would like to eliminate pipe building by Mitch in our country because you like all the liberals know better than anyone else and feel they have a right to control people. You have no respect for freedom or capitalism.
Your concern for the guy in Michigan is misplaced. If his track is zoned correctly they will not close him down, but may pay him to move the track elsewhere. Either way he will be compensated.
It is not a world wide problem, it is not a problem in America or in many other countries, just in Europe where there is too few resoures and a gov that is unwilling to support it (but they do seem to support MotoGP sportbikes and F1) both take up more land and are louder).. It is a problem for countries like England that are land locked and do not have the resources to support MX tracks. That is a choice of their government, if that happens motocrossers will have to move to other countries that support MX and have the resources to support it. Mx will not become a memory due to noise, if it goes away it will be due to lack of participation due to expense and or not enough land.
I care about the noise issue because it affects my pocketbook and future bikes. It may also effect which orgs I race at. I also feel there is inaccurate information being sent out about track closers more so now because advocates like Rock have still not conviced me that legal tracks that support the mx community through practice and racing are shut down due to noise (it does not count if they are moved)
carlosmachos you might want to stop digging since so far you've yet to bolster your claims. So far you've written multiparagraph essays but still have given no real world examples of how sound enforcement costs racers and promoters at the local level. If only you were as good with real world examples ie. actual events as you are with hypotheticals.
So far you've only demonstrated what a great job the FIM/AMA has done pushing the OEMs to deliver 94 db machines. You're "testing hundreds of machines" stance doesn't hold water. You've made this WAY more complicated than it is when the easiest thing to do is random and post race sound tests. It isn't rocket science. If the OEMs build quieter machines and the aftermarket companies supply quiet inserts then its all good. NO ONE is calling for sound testing at the amateur level but you're fixated on the costs of something that simply doesn't exist in the majority of areas in the US.
You're entitled to your opinion just like all of us but when you make statements the way you do then fail miserably to back them up all you're doing is posturing and adding nothing IMO to the discussion. I'm done with the thread until you stop fabricating and start referencing actual examples.
EDIT: You're clearly on the ropes when you resort to introducing liberal/conservative labels into the discussion. The only place this applies is in your mind. BTW, your refusal to acknowledge track closures due to sound borders on delusional IMO. Good luck with that position.
Look again after what ever you been smokin wears off.
Post a reply to: Mitch Payton on rule changes