Anderson injured

Johnny Depp wrote:

Exhibit A: Futures

Exhibit B: Any Vet track

Tarz483 wrote:

Personally i would say no we dont want the track tamed down, that would just increase speeds. But what about Running stock suspension parts How many...

Personally i would say no we dont want the track tamed down, that would just increase speeds.
But what about Running stock suspension parts
How many seconds per lap is factory suspension good for?
Ive always heard thats one of the biggest differences between a factory rider and a privateer,
So maybe if nobody had that suspension it would be better.
Its making the track smooth as butter until a mistake is made.
There is a couple seconds a lap.
How about internal motor work on a factory bike.
How about a factory ECU?
So much better that some guys that have had it dont want to try to compete without it.
So how many seconds per lap do all those things take away?
As far as Track instead of easier, for the pro's i think more technical, steeper angles more walls , anything to slow it down would be better than easier.

Johnny Depp wrote:

So taming the tracks makes them more dangerous? LOL

OldnBroken wrote:

Johnny Depp: No, you have misinterpreted and over simplified what I said. I said making them "easier" which usually involves less or smaller obstacles or smoother...

Johnny Depp: No, you have misinterpreted and over simplified what I said. I said making them "easier" which usually involves less or smaller obstacles or smoother surface equals higher speeds, which seems to be what everyone thinks is the only problem, hence all the arguments for slower/smaller CC bikes, worse suspension, no motor work, etc. I'm not of that opinion. I think it is far too complex to single out a certain issue. Plus NONE of this is relevant in this particular crash because we don't know the facts, and it WASN'T at a race! So, all this stuff would have to be implemented (as I said earlier) at all tracks everywhere. Perhaps we should take up knitting.

Tarz483 wrote:

Personally i would say no we dont want the track tamed down, that would just increase speeds. But what about Running stock suspension parts How many...

Personally i would say no we dont want the track tamed down, that would just increase speeds.
But what about Running stock suspension parts
How many seconds per lap is factory suspension good for?
Ive always heard thats one of the biggest differences between a factory rider and a privateer,
So maybe if nobody had that suspension it would be better.
Its making the track smooth as butter until a mistake is made.
There is a couple seconds a lap.
How about internal motor work on a factory bike.
How about a factory ECU?
So much better that some guys that have had it dont want to try to compete without it.
So how many seconds per lap do all those things take away?
As far as Track instead of easier, for the pro's i think more technical, steeper angles more walls , anything to slow it down would be better than easier.

Johnny Depp wrote:

So taming the tracks makes them more dangerous? LOL

OldnBroken wrote:

Johnny Depp: No, you have misinterpreted and over simplified what I said. I said making them "easier" which usually involves less or smaller obstacles or smoother...

Johnny Depp: No, you have misinterpreted and over simplified what I said. I said making them "easier" which usually involves less or smaller obstacles or smoother surface equals higher speeds, which seems to be what everyone thinks is the only problem, hence all the arguments for slower/smaller CC bikes, worse suspension, no motor work, etc. I'm not of that opinion. I think it is far too complex to single out a certain issue. Plus NONE of this is relevant in this particular crash because we don't know the facts, and it WASN'T at a race! So, all this stuff would have to be implemented (as I said earlier) at all tracks everywhere. Perhaps we should take up knitting.

hellion wrote:

No other sport has the attrition rate supercross does. Yet they keep going down the same path every year and claim it's an anomaly. Rather, the...

No other sport has the attrition rate supercross does. Yet they keep going down the same path every year and claim it's an anomaly. Rather, the anomaly is a year with few injuries. Outdoor moto whether here or elsewhere, GNCC, Hard Enduro, all of it, they're all dangerous, we know and accept it. But supercross crossed the line ten years ago and other than the Matthes nets, they aren't doing much to fix the issues. Was hoping JA would sort his issues out soon, but it appears it will be a while

sam hain wrote:

What would you do to make SX safer? Serious question..

Majority of these injuries every year happen in PRACTICE, not races.

Johnny Depp wrote:

So taming the tracks makes them more dangerous? LOL

OldnBroken wrote:

Johnny Depp: No, you have misinterpreted and over simplified what I said. I said making them "easier" which usually involves less or smaller obstacles or smoother...

Johnny Depp: No, you have misinterpreted and over simplified what I said. I said making them "easier" which usually involves less or smaller obstacles or smoother surface equals higher speeds, which seems to be what everyone thinks is the only problem, hence all the arguments for slower/smaller CC bikes, worse suspension, no motor work, etc. I'm not of that opinion. I think it is far too complex to single out a certain issue. Plus NONE of this is relevant in this particular crash because we don't know the facts, and it WASN'T at a race! So, all this stuff would have to be implemented (as I said earlier) at all tracks everywhere. Perhaps we should take up knitting.

Tarz483 wrote:

Yeah Bob Hannah should take up knitting too And its really not about just this 1 crash Or just the 5 big name Factory Riders hurt...

Yeah Bob Hannah should take up knitting too

And its really not about just this 1 crash
Or just the 5 big name Factory Riders hurt,
I was taking the past few years into consideration.

offroad44b wrote:

Damn, I cant stand Anderson but hate seeing anyone in the sport hurt. Hope he's alright and back at it sooner than later.

kiwifan wrote:

I love it on Vital ....the bikes have too much HP, suspension is too good, and the tracks too unsafe, etc etc ....without knowing ANY details...

I love it on Vital ....the bikes have too much HP, suspension is too good, and the tracks too unsafe, etc etc ....without knowing ANY details about the crash and what caused it

jeffro503 wrote:

I wasn't speaking of Jason's wreck , but more so how the sport is progressing year after year with faster bikes and great speeds. The sport...

I wasn't speaking of Jason's wreck , but more so how the sport is progressing year after year with faster bikes and great speeds. The sport is crazy to begin with , and adding more speed just makes things worse. I myself would rather see a super highly technical track with multiple timing sections , split lanes ect.....just anything to slow the speeds down.

Johnny Depp wrote:

So taming the tracks makes them more dangerous? LOL

Tarz483 wrote:

I think it could make them more dangerous actually
Look at flat track, wide open

Johnny Depp wrote:

Exhibit A: Futures

Exhibit B: Any Vet track

ML512 wrote:

According to some friends at the futures event in Glendale, they carted someone off in basically every race. If you ask most pros that raced in...

According to some friends at the futures event in Glendale, they carted someone off in basically every race. If you ask most pros that raced in the early 2000s to a more current rack they’ll mostly say that when the track is tighter and more technical it’s safer, due to the speeds being lower and length of jumps being shorter. Making the track easier for Rhythm lanes and owning the track up makes the inevitable crash more severe due to basic physics of energy and speed dispersion.

Compromised wrote:

450 = Faster and heavier than alternatives.

What's that e=mc thing again?

Tarz483 wrote:

I think it could make them more dangerous actually
Look at flat track, wide open

Johnny Depp wrote:

Exhibit A: Futures

Exhibit B: Any Vet track

ML512 wrote:

According to some friends at the futures event in Glendale, they carted someone off in basically every race. If you ask most pros that raced in...

According to some friends at the futures event in Glendale, they carted someone off in basically every race. If you ask most pros that raced in the early 2000s to a more current rack they’ll mostly say that when the track is tighter and more technical it’s safer, due to the speeds being lower and length of jumps being shorter. Making the track easier for Rhythm lanes and owning the track up makes the inevitable crash more severe due to basic physics of energy and speed dispersion.

Compromised wrote:

450 = Faster and heavier than alternatives.

What's that e=mc thing again?

JM485 wrote:

You’re looking for F=ma but even that isn’t applicable to two detached objects.

Motofinne wrote:

Barcia will line up this weekend. Lets hope he can manage the pain and get some points, it will be rough.

Compromised wrote:

450 = Faster and heavier than alternatives.

What's that e=mc thing again?

JM485 wrote:

You’re looking for F=ma but even that isn’t applicable to two detached objects.

OldnBroken wrote:

I would argue that stock suspension parts might make things more dangerous for the top level riders - they need every bit of control and consistency...

I would argue that stock suspension parts might make things more dangerous for the top level riders - they need every bit of control and consistency possible from their suspension components. If we degrade the suspension I would think the tracks would have to be toned down and kept smoother to offset - which would result in higher speeds.

I don't think the difference between a stock 57hp bike and a 65hp (or whatever they are at these days) be it from ECU or motorwork(or whatever) is to blame. Stock HP is more than enough to get injured with, speaking from experience! lol

The tracks could be made super technical, and with steep obstacles, but SOMEONE would figure out how to jump something that wasn't intended to be jumped (and again, all these changes would have to take place at all SX rounds as well as all private practice tracks). Also, the slower it gets the more it will look like trials or Endurocross racing.

Also, speed isn't always the decisive factor in injuries, sometimes slow crashes have as much or more consquence as high speed - it all depends on how the rider lands, and his bone density, flexibility, and a million other variables.

motogrady wrote:

Anyone that doesn't agree that the most serious accidents/injuries happen in the whoops and jumps is in denial. Get rid of the big jumps, fuck it...

Anyone that doesn't agree that the most serious accidents/injuries happen in the whoops and jumps is in denial.

Get rid of the big jumps, fuck it, get rid of all of them. And the whoops. Make it about the search for traction again.

Or, just keep going around in circles, looking to lay blame on anything but the obvious.

OldnBroken wrote:

I would argue that stock suspension parts might make things more dangerous for the top level riders - they need every bit of control and consistency...

I would argue that stock suspension parts might make things more dangerous for the top level riders - they need every bit of control and consistency possible from their suspension components. If we degrade the suspension I would think the tracks would have to be toned down and kept smoother to offset - which would result in higher speeds.

I don't think the difference between a stock 57hp bike and a 65hp (or whatever they are at these days) be it from ECU or motorwork(or whatever) is to blame. Stock HP is more than enough to get injured with, speaking from experience! lol

The tracks could be made super technical, and with steep obstacles, but SOMEONE would figure out how to jump something that wasn't intended to be jumped (and again, all these changes would have to take place at all SX rounds as well as all private practice tracks). Also, the slower it gets the more it will look like trials or Endurocross racing.

Also, speed isn't always the decisive factor in injuries, sometimes slow crashes have as much or more consquence as high speed - it all depends on how the rider lands, and his bone density, flexibility, and a million other variables.

WCRider wrote:

Totally agree. Jessy Nelson was not paralyzed because of the high speed or SX. I saw a lot of serious injuries at low speed. SX is...

Totally agree.
Jessy Nelson was not paralyzed because of the high speed or SX. I saw a lot of serious injuries at low speed. SX is not very worse than the MX about injuries imo. The brother in law of Kenny, it was in SX ? Serious question. I have some friends who are paralyzed, all on 2 strokes. The argument of the more slower equals more safer is debatable in my opinion. As Oldnbroken says, it all depends on how the rider lands, and his bone density, flexibility, and a million other variables. And personally, I do not want to see trial or endurocross but SX and SX said also high speed.