Posts
14378
Joined
8/15/2006
Location
Compton, CA, USA
Edited Date/Time
1/21/2014 11:27am
Chad say's...
Talk about the track
Track was gnarly. I’m “that guy” I guess, but I hate these tracks. Honestly, I think they’re terrible. If my track builder built these tracks I wouldn’t pay him. I did a little bit of research, probably like everybody did, and you hear it’s Anaheim A1 of 2001 and I actually walked the track with Mark Barnett, who built that ’01 track and he’s just like, “What the hell is this track?” And I said, “Welcome to the shit that we get every weekend.” They’re way too fast. Look at the lap times. We were doing 51s or whatever it was. In 2001 they were doing 1:02s, and that’s not because the bikes are better. That’s literally because the tracks were way more difficult [back then]. You had to be precise, you had to be technical. Now it’s about pretty much getting your balls and sacking up and going wide open. For me that’s not fun. I’m more of a technical guy, I enjoy that challenge. And it was dry. Obviously the weather, we haven’t had any rain or anything like that. It’s been super hot and windy this week. That I’m not too concerned about— you’ve got everything going against you when you’re in California and it’s hot and it’s windy and all that kind of stuff. But as far as the track, it didn’t replicate 2001 like it was supposed to.
Talk about the track
Track was gnarly. I’m “that guy” I guess, but I hate these tracks. Honestly, I think they’re terrible. If my track builder built these tracks I wouldn’t pay him. I did a little bit of research, probably like everybody did, and you hear it’s Anaheim A1 of 2001 and I actually walked the track with Mark Barnett, who built that ’01 track and he’s just like, “What the hell is this track?” And I said, “Welcome to the shit that we get every weekend.” They’re way too fast. Look at the lap times. We were doing 51s or whatever it was. In 2001 they were doing 1:02s, and that’s not because the bikes are better. That’s literally because the tracks were way more difficult [back then]. You had to be precise, you had to be technical. Now it’s about pretty much getting your balls and sacking up and going wide open. For me that’s not fun. I’m more of a technical guy, I enjoy that challenge. And it was dry. Obviously the weather, we haven’t had any rain or anything like that. It’s been super hot and windy this week. That I’m not too concerned about— you’ve got everything going against you when you’re in California and it’s hot and it’s windy and all that kind of stuff. But as far as the track, it didn’t replicate 2001 like it was supposed to.
Just move the jumps closer to the turn and make them a bit bigger. These four foot high jumps that send them 60 feet at 40mph have to stop. #injuries
How much of it is the tracks changing, and how much is bikes and technique changing over time?
I'm in no position to argue with Reed, but the bikes have gotten better, and so have the riders. If you put Reed on a 2001 YZ250 on that track I imagine his lap time would climb a fair bit...
The Shop
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
So Chad F'n Reed doesn't know what he's talking about? Or is it just protocol to bash a Vitard?
Pit Row
But Chad's point still resonates: tracks designs should intentionally incorporate multiple lines. While #22 did show everyone the fast way around the track, it may have also highlighted the need for perfect bike set-up. Under less-than-optimal traction situations it's imperative that the bike's tire/suspension/power combination match the task at hand. Recovering from a front-wheel slide in loamy conditions is one thing; we all know the result when the same thing happens on a slick course.
I ride the K750 mac, its much better than the stocker. When I type on this sucker it always sounds like I spent last nite at a Holiday Inn Express.
It would be interesting to really see what the lap times were in 2001. I
Post a reply to: This I believe...