KDub..."450's have to go".

Stubbsy21GoPro wrote:

Here in Western Australia our governing body doesn't allow doubles on our motocross track and just recently I realised why. We hold a night race on...

Here in Western Australia our governing body doesn't allow doubles on our motocross track and just recently I realised why. We hold a night race on a shortened, switched up motocross track once a year, this one double that would be considered a piece of cake to any comfortable rider claimed so many people it was ridiculous. The track detiriorating didn't help either. This is just one of the dudes who copped it.

This is why W.A has no doubles

zehn wrote:

So... The next logical question becomes: If we purposely limit the type and size of obstacles on amateur tracks, what happens when those amateurs get to...

So... The next logical question becomes:

If we purposely limit the type and size of obstacles on amateur tracks, what happens when those amateurs get to the Pro ranks? You risk even more devastation than we've seen.

Your example is the perfect example of public policy intended to protect, when it actually makes people more vulnerable.

cslacker wrote:

Maybe... Technology in racing is always trying to make the vehicles "easier" to go fast on. That is where the true advantage of the 4 stroke...

Maybe... Technology in racing is always trying to make the vehicles "easier" to go fast on. That is where the true advantage of the 4 stroke is in mx right?

Look at F1 as the perfect example. the restrictions placed on downforce, tires, electronic driver aides etc... are all to make it so it is not as easy to go fast. That combined with engine restrictions and safety regulations has made it significantly safer.

Yet in our form of racing all of the advancements (including traction control even though there was a rule against it) are still aligned with making it easier to go faster. Chad Reed mentioned in his posting about how the bike is safer than ever. I understand what he means but in reality I feel it has the exact opposite effect.

Just like in other forms of racing, accidents at higher rates of speed will result in higher fatalities. The speed needs to be reduced regardless of how. My opinion is we need to stop making bikes so "easy" to go fast on. And we also need to remember that this will be a constantly moving target. We will not simply come up with an answer tomorrow that will be a permanent solution.

Just my take on things.

reded wrote:

The bikes are safer.....for Chad Reed and others of his elite but a modern 450 can get 17yr old Billy Noname into situations that he just...

The bikes are safer.....for Chad Reed and others of his elite but a modern 450 can get 17yr old Billy Noname into situations that he just can't get out of.

DonM wrote:

The obvious big picture is that we literally don't have any data to go by....zero nada nothing. We don't have any studies on safety equipment, nothing...

The obvious big picture is that we literally don't have any data to go by....zero nada nothing. We don't have any studies on safety equipment, nothing on number of death's this year last year or even the previous 5 years, or even how many compared to a different era, hell we don't even know what the average speed on any given track on any given day is!
So we can't come to any conclusions without proper knowledge and the time to obtain, create and utilize this in now.
The question is who, should or can do this and as GB suggests the greatest starting point is getting sanctioning bodies, promoters and manufacturers together for a summit to get the ball rolling so there at least be some direction, but can the big 5, DC, Luongo the FIM and AMA all sit together and come to an agreement on a direction....

jamma10 wrote:

Q: WHERE DID THE 350 MOTOCROSS BIKE IDEA GERMINATE FROM? A: Power politics. The birth of the 350 was not an organic development that was market...

Q: WHERE DID THE 350 MOTOCROSS BIKE IDEA GERMINATE FROM?

A: Power politics. The birth of the 350 was not an organic development that was market driven by consumer demand, which makes its success all the more amazing. The original idea was generated by two bureaucrats—Youthstream’s Giuseppe Luongo and the AMA’s Steve Whitelock—who felt that 450cc motocross bikes were too powerful. Their plan, which was doomed from the beginning, was to strong-arm the rule-makers into regulating the maximum engine size down to 350cc. They both used their bully pulpits to proselytize about the nirvana of a 350cc world.

The problem for Luongo and Whitelock’s crusade was that no one at Honda, Yamaha, Suzuki or Kawasaki had any intention of building a 350cc motocross bike. Why not? The bottom line. If a manufacturer was selling 20,000 units, equally divided between 250cc four-strokes and 450cc four-strokes, and it made a 350cc four-stroke, its sales department predicted that sales would not increase by 33 percent but that they would sell the same 20,000 units—only divided into three smaller groups. They would still sell 20,000 units, but the 350 would cannibalize 250cc and 450cc sales to do it. And when they factored in the costs of R&D, castings, marketing, warehousing and promotion of a third model, they saw red ink. If Luongo and Whitelock had tried to force a 350cc max displacement rule on the sport, the “Big Four” would have found someplace else to race. Thus, the 350 idea was dead on arrival.

http://motocrossactionmag.com/bike-tests/2015-test-ride-ktm-350sxf

cslacker wrote:

I agree with you, however others will argue that a 85 or 125 could too. The thing they don't mention is the false confidence that these...

I agree with you, however others will argue that a 85 or 125 could too. The thing they don't mention is the false confidence that these "easy" to ride bikes give people. Just hit the gas and hold on and you"ll be fine... until you're not...

BD233 wrote:

I don't have the answers but I am smart enough to see we have a BIG problem. Every succesful race series has went though this...Moto GP...

I don't have the answers but I am smart enough to see we have a BIG problem. Every succesful race series has went though this...Moto GP, Nascar, Formula 1 etc...they all got to a point where the speeds and the power were too much and they addressed it. Please don't be one of the stubborn people that are going to ruin this sport we love by acting like everything is fine. Be open minded, understand we can have a safe AND competitive sport...nothing pussy about that. There are always 2 sides...and the answers are always lost somewhere in the middle. I don't want to see anymore kids die, I don't want to watch as the top guys get hurt every round and we end up with another season where 1/3 of the top guys are out injured...like this season. There has to be a solution.

GuyB wrote:

100 percent agree with this. Every major motorsport that I can think of has hit the reset button at least once...except ours. NASCAR, NHRA, IndyCar, F1...

100 percent agree with this. Every major motorsport that I can think of has hit the reset button at least once...except ours. NASCAR, NHRA, IndyCar, F1 have all done it. I think it'd take some bold leadership to make it happen, and it probably should happen.

gerg wrote:

Do we really know what the issue is? I listened to Kevin Windham on the pod cast. The man speaks very well but made a few...

Do we really know what the issue is?
I listened to Kevin Windham on the pod cast. The man speaks very well but made a few statements that he just cant back up until the facts are there.

EG: Injuries have progressed from broken bones, to paralysis, to deaths.
I can remember when I raced the 2-stroke days in the early '90s there was a broad mixture....mostly broken bones, one paralysis and 2 deaths (that I remember). One of the deaths was a young local kid of a motocross family in it for fun. The other I remember is Joel Elliot who passed away in the US. That was word of mouth, no internet, and absolutely zero coverage on MX in the media.

Death and serious injury in this sport is nothing new...we are on bikes flying through the air. You can case a jump, go down in the first corner and get run over, landed on, you could be paralyzed from a minor awkward tip over...you could calculate the list of potential causes risks for possible death or injury into the millions.

I'm all for increasing the safety of the sport but I dont know how it can be done other than safety equipment.

IMO the argument the bikes are too powerful (less likely), or the tracks are dangerous (more likely and depends on rider skill level) are a knee jerk because we are living in a media driven age where all the information we want is at our fingertips in the news, or international bulletin boards like this.
And of course a lot of the news we are given, or people post about is bad news, debatable news etc.
Are deaths and injuries increasing as a fact or is it because it is far easier to know find out about it?

Would KW be able to tell you the exact number of people who died in the sport in 1992? I bet there were deaths at club, pro, international at all levels, but did we know about it?

Without facts and statistics over serious injuries and death of the sport the world over (of which i am betting there are none) we are not in any position to start gauging or making knee jerk changes based on what we are saying on TV.

When I raced, every major event I attended, the meat wagon was in full swing. There was rarely ever a major event (eg two day we used to call them in AU) where someone or multiple riders werent either concussed, broken bones etc.

It's a part of the sport you can never forget and without any facts or stats mentioned above how can anyone tell you that there's a distinct rise in some line on a graph that says: "Hey in 2006 when 450 4 strokes were the norm or there was an increase of triples designed into the tracks, there was a distinct rise in the annual serious injuries and deaths".

Based on that, how can ANY decision be made on track design, engine specification and capacity with any confidence that it is going to make any difference whatsoever??? I think it's a pretty valid question.

So lets say we ban the 450 because they are "too powerful" and go to a 350cc capacity. Who's to say that in some aspects a 450 is safer than a 250...eg; More power to be able to get out of trouble if things go wrong.
Then we all start riding 350s and the serious injuries/deaths still continue. What next?

I dont understand how you can just draw a line in the sand and start taking potshot targets at something as a cause of increased injury/death based on zero statistical data.

#991 wrote:

The combustible engine has no long term future. Either does our sport if we don't change. You all need to start thinking outside the box. Watch...

The combustible engine has no long term future. Either does our sport if we don't change. You all need to start thinking outside the box.

Watch the power tool market.

Anyone who's into RC hobbies knows I'm right.

cslacker wrote:

I agree with you, however others will argue that a 85 or 125 could too. The thing they don't mention is the false confidence that these...

I agree with you, however others will argue that a 85 or 125 could too. The thing they don't mention is the false confidence that these "easy" to ride bikes give people. Just hit the gas and hold on and you"ll be fine... until you're not...

queen of spodes wrote:

Doesn't work that way. 80s/125s tuned for mx pretty much are not easy to ride. Pipey, short powerbands make it a little harder to maintain speed...

Doesn't work that way. 80s/125s tuned for mx pretty much are not easy to ride. Pipey, short powerbands make it a little harder to maintain speed. 250F by comparison is so much easier to ride and haul the mail.

gerg wrote:

Do we really know what the issue is? I listened to Kevin Windham on the pod cast. The man speaks very well but made a few...

Do we really know what the issue is?
I listened to Kevin Windham on the pod cast. The man speaks very well but made a few statements that he just cant back up until the facts are there.

EG: Injuries have progressed from broken bones, to paralysis, to deaths.
I can remember when I raced the 2-stroke days in the early '90s there was a broad mixture....mostly broken bones, one paralysis and 2 deaths (that I remember). One of the deaths was a young local kid of a motocross family in it for fun. The other I remember is Joel Elliot who passed away in the US. That was word of mouth, no internet, and absolutely zero coverage on MX in the media.

Death and serious injury in this sport is nothing new...we are on bikes flying through the air. You can case a jump, go down in the first corner and get run over, landed on, you could be paralyzed from a minor awkward tip over...you could calculate the list of potential causes risks for possible death or injury into the millions.

I'm all for increasing the safety of the sport but I dont know how it can be done other than safety equipment.

IMO the argument the bikes are too powerful (less likely), or the tracks are dangerous (more likely and depends on rider skill level) are a knee jerk because we are living in a media driven age where all the information we want is at our fingertips in the news, or international bulletin boards like this.
And of course a lot of the news we are given, or people post about is bad news, debatable news etc.
Are deaths and injuries increasing as a fact or is it because it is far easier to know find out about it?

Would KW be able to tell you the exact number of people who died in the sport in 1992? I bet there were deaths at club, pro, international at all levels, but did we know about it?

Without facts and statistics over serious injuries and death of the sport the world over (of which i am betting there are none) we are not in any position to start gauging or making knee jerk changes based on what we are saying on TV.

When I raced, every major event I attended, the meat wagon was in full swing. There was rarely ever a major event (eg two day we used to call them in AU) where someone or multiple riders werent either concussed, broken bones etc.

It's a part of the sport you can never forget and without any facts or stats mentioned above how can anyone tell you that there's a distinct rise in some line on a graph that says: "Hey in 2006 when 450 4 strokes were the norm or there was an increase of triples designed into the tracks, there was a distinct rise in the annual serious injuries and deaths".

Based on that, how can ANY decision be made on track design, engine specification and capacity with any confidence that it is going to make any difference whatsoever??? I think it's a pretty valid question.

So lets say we ban the 450 because they are "too powerful" and go to a 350cc capacity. Who's to say that in some aspects a 450 is safer than a 250...eg; More power to be able to get out of trouble if things go wrong.
Then we all start riding 350s and the serious injuries/deaths still continue. What next?

I dont understand how you can just draw a line in the sand and start taking potshot targets at something as a cause of increased injury/death based on zero statistical data.

Crush wrote:

Stock YZ250F 40 HP?

Really?

Crush wrote:

Stock YZ250F 40 HP?

Really?

Premix wrote:

[img]https://p.vitalmx.com/photos/forums/2015/03/25/85117/s1200_hp_shootout.jpg[/img]

#991 wrote:

The combustible engine has no long term future. Either does our sport if we don't change. You all need to start thinking outside the box. Watch...

The combustible engine has no long term future. Either does our sport if we don't change. You all need to start thinking outside the box.

Watch the power tool market.

Anyone who's into RC hobbies knows I'm right.

DonM wrote:

I hear you, but how does that make it any safer and reduce injuries?

#991 wrote:

The combustible engine has no long term future. Either does our sport if we don't change. You all need to start thinking outside the box. Watch...

The combustible engine has no long term future. Either does our sport if we don't change. You all need to start thinking outside the box.

Watch the power tool market.

Anyone who's into RC hobbies knows I'm right.

DonM wrote:

I hear you, but how does that make it any safer and reduce injuries?

#991 wrote:

It doesn't :P. Turn the power up and they'll be absolute crotch rockets.The Instant torque will be Insane. It does make the conversation of lower CC...

It doesn't . Turn the power up and they'll be absolute crotch rockets.The Instant torque will be Insane.

It does make the conversation of lower CC 4T and 2T bikes etc slightly irrelevant though.

Although still being developed. There's more "R&D" going into getting rid of the combustible engine then there is into further development. Ie. Battery technology etc

I also get that batteries aren't clean power. ATM. The general perception is they are though and that's what matters these days.

Outdoor MX is dead in the water. Again. IMO. It'll become an Indoor sport. Most likely, before the currant shit fight is sorted out.

#991 wrote:

K-Dub made a good argument as to why 2T's are safer to ride than a 4T. "Under deceleration, the characteristics of 4T's cause them nose dive"...

K-Dub made a good argument as to why 2T's are safer to ride than a 4T. "Under deceleration, the characteristics of 4T's cause them nose dive".

Someone on here also mentioned the weight and Inertia and that having the effect of the 4T's slamming you into the ground when it all goes to shit.
The Inertia of the 4T' also means that when things do go to shit, it normally happens in a SNAP!.

2 good points IMO.

#991 wrote:

K-Dub made a good argument as to why 2T's are safer to ride than a 4T. "Under deceleration, the characteristics of 4T's cause them nose dive"...

K-Dub made a good argument as to why 2T's are safer to ride than a 4T. "Under deceleration, the characteristics of 4T's cause them nose dive".

Someone on here also mentioned the weight and Inertia and that having the effect of the 4T's slamming you into the ground when it all goes to shit.
The Inertia of the 4T' also means that when things do go to shit, it normally happens in a SNAP!.

2 good points IMO.

RailinRuts450 wrote:

Weird. I feel more comfortable approaching a jump and in the air on a 4T than I ever did on a 2T. Maybe that's just me.

Rumple4skin wrote:

But do we want pro tracks that have smaller obstacles? Do we want LaRocco's Leap to go away? I'd hate to see that. I don't want...

But do we want pro tracks that have smaller obstacles? Do we want LaRocco's Leap to go away? I'd hate to see that. I don't want to go to a pro national and watch the best riders in the world racing on a track that I could clear everything on. Young racers have to learn the big stuff prior to turning pro. Maybe obstacles like sharp edge landings from doubles could go away. I don't know. A happy median is there somewhere.

bama205 wrote:

See bubba hitting it on a 125, now that was more fun to watch than pretty much everyone hitting it nowadays

DonM wrote:

I hear you, but how does that make it any safer and reduce injuries?

#991 wrote:

It doesn't :P. Turn the power up and they'll be absolute crotch rockets.The Instant torque will be Insane. It does make the conversation of lower CC...

It doesn't . Turn the power up and they'll be absolute crotch rockets.The Instant torque will be Insane.

It does make the conversation of lower CC 4T and 2T bikes etc slightly irrelevant though.

Although still being developed. There's more "R&D" going into getting rid of the combustible engine then there is into further development. Ie. Battery technology etc

I also get that batteries aren't clean power. ATM. The general perception is they are though and that's what matters these days.

Outdoor MX is dead in the water. Again. IMO. It'll become an Indoor sport. Most likely, before the currant shit fight is sorted out.

DonM wrote:

and now F1 is involved in the technology...

#991 wrote:

K-Dub made a good argument as to why 2T's are safer to ride than a 4T. "Under deceleration, the characteristics of 4T's cause them nose dive"...

K-Dub made a good argument as to why 2T's are safer to ride than a 4T. "Under deceleration, the characteristics of 4T's cause them nose dive".

Someone on here also mentioned the weight and Inertia and that having the effect of the 4T's slamming you into the ground when it all goes to shit.
The Inertia of the 4T' also means that when things do go to shit, it normally happens in a SNAP!.

2 good points IMO.

RailinRuts450 wrote:

Weird. I feel more comfortable approaching a jump and in the air on a 4T than I ever did on a 2T. Maybe that's just me.

#991 wrote:

I'm the opposite to you, but that could be just me :P I Hate engine braking of any kind and the top heavy feel of a...

I'm the opposite to you, but that could be just me

I Hate engine braking of any kind and the top heavy feel of a 4T.

Crush wrote:

Stock YZ250F 40 HP?

Really?

Premix wrote:

[img]https://p.vitalmx.com/photos/forums/2015/03/25/85117/s1200_hp_shootout.jpg[/img]

Crush wrote:

Hmmm... Thought they were making more than that stock, not much, but more. I see that though and that is still not much less than what...

Hmmm... Thought they were making more than that stock, not much, but more.

I see that though and that is still not much less than what 250 two strokes were... and much more than what 125cc two strokes were.