Triples - Do they still belong in SX?

wsmille2 wrote:

Triples - they used to be a fan favorite, is that still the case? When looking at the track map for this weekend (Denver), I noticed...

Triples - they used to be a fan favorite, is that still the case? When looking at the track map for this weekend (Denver), I noticed the plan is for 2 triples in different sections on the track. Obviously that can change when they build the track but does any one else think that space could be used for something more exciting? When looking at the tracks so far, this appears to be the only track that has planned for 2 triples which are only separated by only 2 jumps. All the triples are the same length and height at each track unless it's a triple in a rhythm section.

I think the only reason to keep them is to give riders a chance to take a breath in the air. Could they just make the finish line jump into a triple or bigger like what they did in Houston?

Thoughts? The most exciting part of triples in recent memories was watching JS7 scrub pass someone in the air.

Track and Trail wrote:

Any good reason for having a triple died with the 125. They might as well all be big doubles.

wsmille2 wrote:

Triples - they used to be a fan favorite, is that still the case? When looking at the track map for this weekend (Denver), I noticed...

Triples - they used to be a fan favorite, is that still the case? When looking at the track map for this weekend (Denver), I noticed the plan is for 2 triples in different sections on the track. Obviously that can change when they build the track but does any one else think that space could be used for something more exciting? When looking at the tracks so far, this appears to be the only track that has planned for 2 triples which are only separated by only 2 jumps. All the triples are the same length and height at each track unless it's a triple in a rhythm section.

I think the only reason to keep them is to give riders a chance to take a breath in the air. Could they just make the finish line jump into a triple or bigger like what they did in Houston?

Thoughts? The most exciting part of triples in recent memories was watching JS7 scrub pass someone in the air.

Track and Trail wrote:

Any good reason for having a triple died with the 125. They might as well all be big doubles.

peltier626 wrote:

I remember seeing sx in New Orleans in the 90's and there were maybe 2 or 3 125's jumping the triples. ONE triple per track is...

I remember seeing sx in New Orleans in the 90's and there were maybe 2 or 3 125's jumping the triples. ONE triple per track is quite enough. A suitable double would be a great replacement for the triple nowadays.

Track and Trail wrote:

Any good reason for having a triple died with the 125. They might as well all be big doubles.

peltier626 wrote:

I remember seeing sx in New Orleans in the 90's and there were maybe 2 or 3 125's jumping the triples. ONE triple per track is...

I remember seeing sx in New Orleans in the 90's and there were maybe 2 or 3 125's jumping the triples. ONE triple per track is quite enough. A suitable double would be a great replacement for the triple nowadays.

Tarz483 wrote:

I do think it would be Cool to have A Double that is just the same measurements as a Triple but without the Center jump.

Tarz483 wrote:

I do think it would be Cool to have A Double that is just the same measurements as a Triple but without the Center jump.

Tarz483 wrote:

I do think it would be Cool to have A Double that is just the same measurements as a Triple but without the Center jump.

Slay896 wrote:

Well then if you miss rhythm a bit before and you don't have enough time to break, baaam crash. And then in a triple you can...

Well then if you miss rhythm a bit before and you don't have enough time to break, baaam crash.
And then in a triple you can double and not lose as much time as roll through two piles

Tarz483 wrote:

I do think it would be Cool to have A Double that is just the same measurements as a Triple but without the Center jump.

Slay896 wrote:

Well then if you miss rhythm a bit before and you don't have enough time to break, baaam crash. And then in a triple you can...

Well then if you miss rhythm a bit before and you don't have enough time to break, baaam crash.
And then in a triple you can double and not lose as much time as roll through two piles

Motofinne wrote:

That is good in my opinion. If a rider makes a mistake in the corner before and can't jump the double he will lose a lot...

That is good in my opinion. If a rider makes a mistake in the corner before and can't jump the double he will lose a lot of time.

ob wrote:

If you think the triple isn’t a real gnarly obstacle you haven’t ever rolled the turn and tried to line up an jump that shit. You...

If you think the triple isn’t a real gnarly obstacle you haven’t ever rolled the turn and tried to line up an jump that shit. You don’t understand how steep those take offs are and how soon the corner comes after the landing. It ain’t a joke.

ob wrote:

If you think the triple isn’t a real gnarly obstacle you haven’t ever rolled the turn and tried to line up an jump that shit. You...

If you think the triple isn’t a real gnarly obstacle you haven’t ever rolled the turn and tried to line up an jump that shit. You don’t understand how steep those take offs are and how soon the corner comes after the landing. It ain’t a joke.

ob wrote:

If you think the triple isn’t a real gnarly obstacle you haven’t ever rolled the turn and tried to line up an jump that shit. You...

If you think the triple isn’t a real gnarly obstacle you haven’t ever rolled the turn and tried to line up an jump that shit. You don’t understand how steep those take offs are and how soon the corner comes after the landing. It ain’t a joke.

Track and Trail wrote:

I’m sure they’re plenty gnarly, but the center “jump” is unnecessary all the same.

wsmille2 wrote:

Triples - they used to be a fan favorite, is that still the case? When looking at the track map for this weekend (Denver), I noticed...

Triples - they used to be a fan favorite, is that still the case? When looking at the track map for this weekend (Denver), I noticed the plan is for 2 triples in different sections on the track. Obviously that can change when they build the track but does any one else think that space could be used for something more exciting? When looking at the tracks so far, this appears to be the only track that has planned for 2 triples which are only separated by only 2 jumps. All the triples are the same length and height at each track unless it's a triple in a rhythm section.

I think the only reason to keep them is to give riders a chance to take a breath in the air. Could they just make the finish line jump into a triple or bigger like what they did in Houston?

Thoughts? The most exciting part of triples in recent memories was watching JS7 scrub pass someone in the air.

ob wrote:

If you think the triple isn’t a real gnarly obstacle you haven’t ever rolled the turn and tried to line up an jump that shit. You...

If you think the triple isn’t a real gnarly obstacle you haven’t ever rolled the turn and tried to line up an jump that shit. You don’t understand how steep those take offs are and how soon the corner comes after the landing. It ain’t a joke.

Track and Trail wrote:

I’m sure they’re plenty gnarly, but the center “jump” is unnecessary all the same.

ob wrote:

Stick to trails and don’t worry about it, lol just kidding, that center jump comes in handy when you can’t clear the whole thing. Unless you...

Stick to trails and don’t worry about it, lol just kidding, that center jump comes in handy when you can’t clear the whole thing. Unless you think jumping a 15’ mound to flat seems fun.

SoCalMX70 wrote:

2 triples used to be the standard at every round. They were also closer to 70-75 feet, rather than today's standard 65 feet. Watch any early...

2 triples used to be the standard at every round. They were also closer to 70-75 feet, rather than today's standard 65 feet. Watch any early 2000s race, it's a noticeable difference.

I didn't pay too much attention last year, but this year has seen many tracks with just a single triple. I don't mind, just an observation.

It doesn't matter what is changed though, the 250s will still clear what the 450s do. We are too far down that shitty road... If it were my way we'd have a 125 2-stroke feeder class and a 350 4-stroke premier class. GUARANTEE we would see better racing with that setup. No, I don't care what the "better machine" is. I just want to see steeper/slower obstacles again, riders having to be more precise, and lose more time when they make small mistakes due to having less power (resulting in better racing).

Oh, and to answer the question, I think having at least one large jump/triple is still necessary, for fans (mostly casual) and the riders.

kkawboy14 wrote:

They need to be big enough so the 250s can’t make it! A shorter run up to it with a longer triple! That would make the...

They need to be big enough so the 250s can’t make it! A shorter run up to it with a longer triple!

That would make the 250 lap times longer also, to the general public it’s dumb that a 250 go just about the same lap times.

SWOHIO GUY wrote:

Instead of Triples what about a wall jump into a sand section? How they were at monster cup. The riders can either scrub it or send...

Instead of Triples what about a wall jump into a sand section? How they were at monster cup. The riders can either scrub it or send it. The only downfall would be safety concerns of riders possibly landing on each other. The fans at Monster Cup loved it from what I remember.

wsmille2 wrote:

Or even just rollers, that are spaced out more than whoops but takes the same shape. That way you can attempt to jump thru or keep...

Or even just rollers, that are spaced out more than whoops but takes the same shape. That way you can attempt to jump thru or keep your front wheel high like Tomac in Daytona!