Why manufacturers will never go back to two strokes

queen of spodes wrote:

Does that trivia change today's profit margins in a meaningful way?

queen of spodes wrote:

Does that trivia change today's profit margins in a meaningful way?

GuyB wrote:

I couldn't tell you. But I do think it makes your argument less valid.

OldYZRider1 wrote:

i think it's a little more complex than just consumer demand dictating the switch to four strokes. While the initial spark to the changeover was probably...

i think it's a little more complex than just consumer demand dictating the switch to four strokes. While the initial spark to the changeover was probably stimulated by the success Yamaha was having, I believe the "managers and accountants" got involved and determined it was the most efficient overall strategy for the bike manufacturers on the island of Japan.

All the Japanese brands likely share the same supplier base (for instance a manufacturer may supply camshafts for all brands there) and since Japan does not prevent collusion among businesses there its likely that Honda, Yamaha, Suzuki and Kawasaki are sharing information. If they collectively determined that the four stroke motor was the preferred choice for the markets they supply product to (several emission sensitive), then that's the direction they collectively decided to go. Only thing left to do was market that strategy.

The Japanese are excellent at manufacturing efficiency but I think equally as good at marketing. While there was a threat of looming EPA restrictions for elements of off-road motorcycling, I don't believe MX bikes we're ever seriously in jeopardy. They used this perceived threat to help them sell their four stroke agenda to the worldwide MX market. I feel they are holding back two stroke engine competition in pro MX by "encouraging" the continuance of the current unfair displacement rule structure, the excessive homologation requirements and the leaded fuel ban. They use the threat of pulling out of participation to keep the sanctioning bodies worried and complying with their desires. We all know they've "ruled the roost " for decades, they're not gonna give it up easy. This has resulted in almost the complete elimination of the simple and inexpensive two stroke engine in professional MX racing where for some riders and lower budget teams it could still be a good fit.

mxrose3 wrote:

...post deleted

GuyB wrote:

Do you think I get to look at their books?

GuyB wrote:

You know where I heard some of the earliest and loudest industry grumping about the cost of four-strokes, and their potential negative impact on the sport...

You know where I heard some of the earliest and loudest industry grumping about the cost of four-strokes, and their potential negative impact on the sport? I'll give you a hint...it was at a company that uses three letters in their name.

RMT wrote:

Ok, here is my two cents and before I go any further, I know nobody cares! So we were moving along nicely in the MX world...

Ok, here is my two cents and before I go any further, I know nobody cares!

So we were moving along nicely in the MX world and then Yamaha came along and screwed things up with the YZF400. Lets be honest, we all thought it was pretty cool at first and having Doug Henry riding it didn't hurt much either. Well, then the AMA goes and changes the rules to allow the 4 stroke a pretty strong advantage. I can tell you 100% that the manufacturers that were not making a 4 stroke mx bike at that time had no part in wanting this rules change. Now Yamaha is selling these bikes out left and right. The dealers are actually making a decent margin on the front end sales of MX bikes, something that had not happened in years. Honda caught wind of the original YZF400 or whatever they called it over in Japan before it was even racing here in the US. They started drawing up their own version and kinda waited to see if it really took off. As soon as they realized it did and Bam, they threw out the CRF450. If your not old enough to remember, people were drooling over these things. Having one of the first ones at the track was like having a factory works bike. Deposits were left at dealerships and lines formed to get one of these new Honda 4 strokes. The OEM's were loving it as contrary to popular belief, most the OEM execs are motorcycle guys and like cool shit. Making money makes things even better. The last two OEM's got caught out and sales slumped. In hindsight, they were still building what some think to be the best MX bikes ever made (RM250), but the consumer was not buying them. If they had a crystal ball, I guess they could have seen the 08 recession coming and what it has done to the motorcycle industry as a whole. They could have saved a lot of R&D money and stuck with the 2 strokes that they should have known everyone would want a few years down the road. NOT.

So, along comes KTM and they build some real nice machines. They build a real nice 2 stroke. Thing is, at most local races, you don't see many on the gates. Yeah, a few here and there, but its still mostly red and blue and in the 250F class, its red and green. In the case of motorcycle sales, perception is not reality. Im not saying KTM does not sell a lot of bikes, but most are sold to older guys who trail ride. These trail riding guys used to buy Honda's so you see who is the big loser in all of this.

So, what real motivation does Suzuki or Kawasaki have to build an all new 2 stroke bike? Has the overall off road motorcycle category grown over the past 5 years. No, it continues to go down or at least stay flat. R&D is expensive and so is marketing a new model, so right now, OEM's are putting money into what is selling and keeping the dealers making money. Unfortunately, this is not a 2 stroke MX or trail bike. SXS's seem to be the hot seller and the folks with money are buying them. People that used to buy 3-4 bikes are just buying one 4 seat SXS and packing the family in one machine for outdoor recreation. Not the same to you and I, but again, money talks and the MX crowd is the silent minority.

Its crazy to think that all 4 Japanese manufactures got together and came up with a plan to keep making 4 strokes because they will make more money selling parts and dealers make money servicing them vs. 2 strokes. That's right up there with some of the 911 and JFK conspiracy's Iv'e heard. That is a poor business plan for any business, and especially crazy considering the Japanese would never think like that. Yes, the EPA thing did come along at the same time, but that was never the prime driver in all of this. SALES SALES SALES was always what led the train. Seriously, if everyone stopped buying 4 strokes today and only wanted a YZ250, the other OEM's would come with new 2 strokes in a few years.

Ok, that was worth about .00001 a cent.

GuyB wrote:

Thanks, RMT. A little sanity is always good to see. I don't blame Yamaha for taking advantage of the rules. I do think this one falls...

Thanks, RMT. A little sanity is always good to see.

I don't blame Yamaha for taking advantage of the rules. I do think this one falls firmly in the lap of the AMA for not recognizing that the prototype YZ400 and the four-strokes were as big a game-changer as they were, and not amending the rule before it got too far down the road.

The rule was written to make the old breed of four-strokes more competitive. Basically trail bike technology. The Yamaha (and Honda that followed it), were nothing like the old breed.

queen of spodes wrote:

Would Pro-circuit and FMF rather sell a $300 or a $1300 exhaust system? (insert blank stare here) This goes beyond parts/service sales at the OEM. Entire...

Would Pro-circuit and FMF rather sell a $300 or a $1300 exhaust system? (insert blank stare here)

This goes beyond parts/service sales at the OEM. Entire industry sees increased sales dollars from thumpers. Since there are fewer people riding, the higher prices that go with four-stroke parts allow many aftermarket manufacturers to remain relevant.

GuyB wrote:

You know where I heard some of the earliest and loudest industry grumping about the cost of four-strokes, and their potential negative impact on the sport...

You know where I heard some of the earliest and loudest industry grumping about the cost of four-strokes, and their potential negative impact on the sport? I'll give you a hint...it was at a company that uses three letters in their name.

TeamGreen wrote:

The 4-Stroke Displacement Rule came AFTER the YZ400?

GuyB wrote:

queen of spodes wrote: Would Pro-circuit and FMF rather sell a $300 or a $1300 exhaust system? (insert blank stare here) This goes beyond parts/service sales...

queen of spodes wrote: Would Pro-circuit and FMF rather sell a $300 or a $1300 exhaust system? (insert blank stare here)

This goes beyond parts/service sales at the OEM. Entire industry sees increased sales dollars from thumpers. Since there are fewer people riding, the higher prices that go with four-stroke parts allow many aftermarket manufacturers to remain relevant."


Unfortunately, I was responding to your hypothetical. You make it seem like they're positively gleeful about four-strokes. I merely suggested that your hypothetical may in fact be incorrect. Especially when you're trying to make it seem like four-strokes are some industry-wide conspiracy.

Now I'm no expert at their business, but I do know there are fewer bikes sold these days. Does a lower number of units at a higher cost equal out to a higher number of units at a lower cost?

Katoomey wrote:

your question is semantic. it assumes that 4 strokes are unequivocally responsible for the decline in bike sales. there's a huge argument to win there before...

your question is semantic. it assumes that 4 strokes are unequivocally responsible for the decline in bike sales. there's a huge argument to win there before the quality vs. quantity argument can be waged.

GuyB wrote:

queen of spodes wrote: Would Pro-circuit and FMF rather sell a $300 or a $1300 exhaust system? (insert blank stare here) This goes beyond parts/service sales...

queen of spodes wrote: Would Pro-circuit and FMF rather sell a $300 or a $1300 exhaust system? (insert blank stare here)

This goes beyond parts/service sales at the OEM. Entire industry sees increased sales dollars from thumpers. Since there are fewer people riding, the higher prices that go with four-stroke parts allow many aftermarket manufacturers to remain relevant."


Unfortunately, I was responding to your hypothetical. You make it seem like they're positively gleeful about four-strokes. I merely suggested that your hypothetical may in fact be incorrect. Especially when you're trying to make it seem like four-strokes are some industry-wide conspiracy.

Now I'm no expert at their business, but I do know there are fewer bikes sold these days. Does a lower number of units at a higher cost equal out to a higher number of units at a lower cost?

Katoomey wrote:

your question is semantic. it assumes that 4 strokes are unequivocally responsible for the decline in bike sales. there's a huge argument to win there before...

your question is semantic. it assumes that 4 strokes are unequivocally responsible for the decline in bike sales. there's a huge argument to win there before the quality vs. quantity argument can be waged.

avidchimp wrote:

I blame Steve Whitelock.

RMT wrote:

Ok, here is my two cents and before I go any further, I know nobody cares! So we were moving along nicely in the MX world...

Ok, here is my two cents and before I go any further, I know nobody cares!

So we were moving along nicely in the MX world and then Yamaha came along and screwed things up with the YZF400. Lets be honest, we all thought it was pretty cool at first and having Doug Henry riding it didn't hurt much either. Well, then the AMA goes and changes the rules to allow the 4 stroke a pretty strong advantage. I can tell you 100% that the manufacturers that were not making a 4 stroke mx bike at that time had no part in wanting this rules change. Now Yamaha is selling these bikes out left and right. The dealers are actually making a decent margin on the front end sales of MX bikes, something that had not happened in years. Honda caught wind of the original YZF400 or whatever they called it over in Japan before it was even racing here in the US. They started drawing up their own version and kinda waited to see if it really took off. As soon as they realized it did and Bam, they threw out the CRF450. If your not old enough to remember, people were drooling over these things. Having one of the first ones at the track was like having a factory works bike. Deposits were left at dealerships and lines formed to get one of these new Honda 4 strokes. The OEM's were loving it as contrary to popular belief, most the OEM execs are motorcycle guys and like cool shit. Making money makes things even better. The last two OEM's got caught out and sales slumped. In hindsight, they were still building what some think to be the best MX bikes ever made (RM250), but the consumer was not buying them. If they had a crystal ball, I guess they could have seen the 08 recession coming and what it has done to the motorcycle industry as a whole. They could have saved a lot of R&D money and stuck with the 2 strokes that they should have known everyone would want a few years down the road. NOT.

So, along comes KTM and they build some real nice machines. They build a real nice 2 stroke. Thing is, at most local races, you don't see many on the gates. Yeah, a few here and there, but its still mostly red and blue and in the 250F class, its red and green. In the case of motorcycle sales, perception is not reality. Im not saying KTM does not sell a lot of bikes, but most are sold to older guys who trail ride. These trail riding guys used to buy Honda's so you see who is the big loser in all of this.

So, what real motivation does Suzuki or Kawasaki have to build an all new 2 stroke bike? Has the overall off road motorcycle category grown over the past 5 years. No, it continues to go down or at least stay flat. R&D is expensive and so is marketing a new model, so right now, OEM's are putting money into what is selling and keeping the dealers making money. Unfortunately, this is not a 2 stroke MX or trail bike. SXS's seem to be the hot seller and the folks with money are buying them. People that used to buy 3-4 bikes are just buying one 4 seat SXS and packing the family in one machine for outdoor recreation. Not the same to you and I, but again, money talks and the MX crowd is the silent minority.

Its crazy to think that all 4 Japanese manufactures got together and came up with a plan to keep making 4 strokes because they will make more money selling parts and dealers make money servicing them vs. 2 strokes. That's right up there with some of the 911 and JFK conspiracy's Iv'e heard. That is a poor business plan for any business, and especially crazy considering the Japanese would never think like that. Yes, the EPA thing did come along at the same time, but that was never the prime driver in all of this. SALES SALES SALES was always what led the train. Seriously, if everyone stopped buying 4 strokes today and only wanted a YZ250, the other OEM's would come with new 2 strokes in a few years.

Ok, that was worth about .00001 a cent.

Crush wrote:

It was rewritten.

It used to be 680cc or something stupid.

Then came down in stages.

queen of spodes wrote:

Would Pro-circuit and FMF rather sell a $300 or a $1300 exhaust system? (insert blank stare here) This goes beyond parts/service sales at the OEM. Entire...

Would Pro-circuit and FMF rather sell a $300 or a $1300 exhaust system? (insert blank stare here)

This goes beyond parts/service sales at the OEM. Entire industry sees increased sales dollars from thumpers. Since there are fewer people riding, the higher prices that go with four-stroke parts allow many aftermarket manufacturers to remain relevant.

GuyB wrote:

You know where I heard some of the earliest and loudest industry grumping about the cost of four-strokes, and their potential negative impact on the sport...

You know where I heard some of the earliest and loudest industry grumping about the cost of four-strokes, and their potential negative impact on the sport? I'll give you a hint...it was at a company that uses three letters in their name.

TeamGreen wrote:

And Mitch...for day one...said 4 Strokes cost too damn much too make a factory bike out of...

Skippie wrote:

Can you read? It's a fact that since the recession bike sales are down. So yes parts are more expensive for 4st (both to produce and...

Can you read? It's a fact that since the recession bike sales are down. So yes parts are more expensive for 4st (both to produce and sell), but I don't think companies are stoked to be selling less no matter how much more expensive it is.

queen of spodes wrote:

[b]Widget A)[/b] Retails for $100 which includes an average labor cost of $3 and material cost of $50 Company sells 10 widgets resulting in $1000 in...

Widget A)
Retails for $100 which includes an average labor cost of $3 and material cost of $50 Company sells 10 widgets resulting in $1000 in sales with $30 in labor and $500 in materials. Profit margin: $47 per widget.

Widget B )
Retails for $10 which includes an average labor cost of $3 and material cost of $3. Company sells 10 widgets resulting in $100 in sales, with $30 in labor. and $30 in materials. Profit margin: $4 per widget.


I'm not a fortune 500 CEO, but basic business sense tells me that the company would prefer selling more of product A over product B.

GuyB wrote:

You know where I heard some of the earliest and loudest industry grumping about the cost of four-strokes, and their potential negative impact on the sport...

You know where I heard some of the earliest and loudest industry grumping about the cost of four-strokes, and their potential negative impact on the sport? I'll give you a hint...it was at a company that uses three letters in their name.

TeamGreen wrote:

And Mitch...for day one...said 4 Strokes cost too damn much too make a factory bike out of...

Holigan wrote:

During the 2004 season, both Donnie and Mitch were constantly complaining about the AMA killing off the 125's. Donnie told me all season that they made...

During the 2004 season, both Donnie and Mitch were constantly complaining about the AMA killing off the 125's. Donnie told me all season that they made more on 4 stroke pipes, but that 125's were the lifeblood of the industry and that the AMA was making a huge mistake. Mitch was totally against the change from 125 to 250F. But both guys are smart enough to sell what people want to buy.

Skippie wrote:

Can you read? It's a fact that since the recession bike sales are down. So yes parts are more expensive for 4st (both to produce and...

Can you read? It's a fact that since the recession bike sales are down. So yes parts are more expensive for 4st (both to produce and sell), but I don't think companies are stoked to be selling less no matter how much more expensive it is.

queen of spodes wrote:

[b]Widget A)[/b] Retails for $100 which includes an average labor cost of $3 and material cost of $50 Company sells 10 widgets resulting in $1000 in...

Widget A)
Retails for $100 which includes an average labor cost of $3 and material cost of $50 Company sells 10 widgets resulting in $1000 in sales with $30 in labor and $500 in materials. Profit margin: $47 per widget.

Widget B )
Retails for $10 which includes an average labor cost of $3 and material cost of $3. Company sells 10 widgets resulting in $100 in sales, with $30 in labor. and $30 in materials. Profit margin: $4 per widget.


I'm not a fortune 500 CEO, but basic business sense tells me that the company would prefer selling more of product A over product B.

Skippie wrote:

Why don't you go get actual statistics to back up your argument rather then taking a word problem out of a 5th grade math textbook.