Supercross, why so technical?

peltier626
Edited Date/Time 10/22/2019 8:02pm
Does being so technical make for better racing? Does it add to the value of the product? Does it increase the severity of injuries? Do these spectacular crashes result in more A$$'s in the seats? Opinions please.
4
20
|
zippytech
Profile picture for user zippytech
Posts
1513
Joined
9/8/2018
Location
Bethesda, OH, USA
zippytech 10/3/2019 2:06pm
10/3/2019 2:06pm
I remember when only the best of the best would make all the jumps, but I know spectators. They like to see big air and lots of crashes.
1
akmx17
Profile picture for user akmx17
Posts
2706
Joined
3/5/2007
Location
Palmer, AK, USA
akmx17 10/3/2019 2:15pm
10/3/2019 2:15pm
Why make it easy...?
2
2
dickjackson170 10/3/2019 2:41pm
10/3/2019 2:41pm
Yes, yes, not necessarily, not unless you're a heathen
Hammer 663s
Profile picture for user Hammer 663s
Posts
3115
Joined
6/2/2016
Location
None, AE, USA
Hammer 663s 10/3/2019 4:02pm
10/3/2019 4:02pm Edited Date/Time 10/3/2019 4:02pm
And I'll go No, No, Yes, and Yes for the average Joe.
2
2

The Shop

See All »
inthebadboycorner 10/3/2019 4:12pm
10/3/2019 4:12pm
Actually big air does not make it good racing to me, throw in a couple of smooth straights and funky corners to get the bar safe banging happening again.
4
2
CivBars
Profile picture for user CivBars
Posts
1472
Joined
4/13/2019
Location
USA
CivBars 10/3/2019 4:27pm
10/3/2019 4:27pm


SX has to condense the speed and excitement of MX into a stadium and instead of going fast on staights you go high on jumps!
3
1
BMSOBx2
Profile picture for user BMSOBx2
Posts
2087
Joined
2/18/2017
Location
Antioch, CA, USA
BMSOBx2 10/3/2019 5:04pm
10/3/2019 5:04pm
CivBars wrote:
[img]https://p.vitalmx.com/photos/forums/2019/10/03/377450/s1200_whyso.jpg[/img] SX has to condense the speed and excitement of MX into a stadium and instead of going fast on staights you go high on jumps!


SX has to condense the speed and excitement of MX into a stadium and instead of going fast on staights you go high on jumps!
Actually pretty close to the truth. In fact that's the best explanation I've heard. I hate it because they're all the same.
1
1
kb228
Profile picture for user kb228
Posts
6153
Joined
1/31/2018
Location
Mansfield, OH, USA
kb228 10/3/2019 5:06pm
10/3/2019 5:06pm
CivBars wrote:
[img]https://p.vitalmx.com/photos/forums/2019/10/03/377450/s1200_whyso.jpg[/img] SX has to condense the speed and excitement of MX into a stadium and instead of going fast on staights you go high on jumps!


SX has to condense the speed and excitement of MX into a stadium and instead of going fast on staights you go high on jumps!
BMSOBx2 wrote:
Actually pretty close to the truth. In fact that's the best explanation I've heard. I hate it because they're all the same.
Also i prefer to watch professional riders go fast on a technical track that 99% of the population would wad themselves on.
3
peltier626 10/3/2019 5:09pm
10/3/2019 5:09pm
CivBars wrote:
[img]https://p.vitalmx.com/photos/forums/2019/10/03/377450/s1200_whyso.jpg[/img] SX has to condense the speed and excitement of MX into a stadium and instead of going fast on staights you go high on jumps!


SX has to condense the speed and excitement of MX into a stadium and instead of going fast on staights you go high on jumps!
Could you accomplish the same thing with the design but without the extreme precision and so little room for error?
2
1
peltier626 10/3/2019 5:11pm
10/3/2019 5:11pm
akmx17 wrote:
Why make it easy...?
I didn't say easy. How about the racing aspect of it, does being so technical and precise make for good racing?
1
1
peltier626 10/3/2019 5:14pm
10/3/2019 5:14pm
CivBars wrote:
[img]https://p.vitalmx.com/photos/forums/2019/10/03/377450/s1200_whyso.jpg[/img] SX has to condense the speed and excitement of MX into a stadium and instead of going fast on staights you go high on jumps!


SX has to condense the speed and excitement of MX into a stadium and instead of going fast on staights you go high on jumps!
BMSOBx2 wrote:
Actually pretty close to the truth. In fact that's the best explanation I've heard. I hate it because they're all the same.
kb228 wrote:
Also i prefer to watch professional riders go fast on a technical track that 99% of the population would wad themselves on.
Throughout the last couple of seasons a typical battle between riders last a couple of turns, very rarely a couple laps? Just curious as to what provides good racing?
2
1
kb228
Profile picture for user kb228
Posts
6153
Joined
1/31/2018
Location
Mansfield, OH, USA
kb228 10/3/2019 5:28pm
10/3/2019 5:28pm
BMSOBx2 wrote:
Actually pretty close to the truth. In fact that's the best explanation I've heard. I hate it because they're all the same.
kb228 wrote:
Also i prefer to watch professional riders go fast on a technical track that 99% of the population would wad themselves on.
peltier626 wrote:
Throughout the last couple of seasons a typical battle between riders last a couple of turns, very rarely a couple laps? Just curious as to what...
Throughout the last couple of seasons a typical battle between riders last a couple of turns, very rarely a couple laps? Just curious as to what provides good racing?
Every triple crown.. tomac vs dungey in 17. Rv in 2011 and 12. Lots of good racing in sx. Ill admit 19 sx season was mostly a snooze fest. It comes and goes. That goes for outdoors too
1
Keith72
Profile picture for user Keith72
Posts
394
Joined
7/17/2010
Location
Omaha, NE, USA
Keith72 10/3/2019 5:39pm
10/3/2019 5:39pm
Because, if it was easy, everyone would do it.
3
AussieParaMX
Profile picture for user AussieParaMX
Posts
1720
Joined
7/30/2009
Location
Mount Waverley, VIC, AU
AussieParaMX 10/3/2019 8:04pm
10/3/2019 8:04pm
peltier626 wrote:
Does being so technical make for better racing? Does it add to the value of the product? Does it increase the severity of injuries? Do these...
Does being so technical make for better racing? Does it add to the value of the product? Does it increase the severity of injuries? Do these spectacular crashes result in more A$$'s in the seats? Opinions please.
I think you seem to be equating technical as dangerous or something. In my opinions the tracks aren’t technical enough. Make it more technical and slow the pace down and make consistently getting through tough sections the aim of the game..... at the moment it’s technical and fast speeds. That’s a recipe for injuries.

Slow it down. Make whoops start 2 /3rds through the preceding corner so there’s no way to attack them with speed, ditto with Rythm sections. Make back side of jumps in rhythm sections mellow hut the lip side steeper to discourage high speed distance and make it more technical. Out one or two jumps/triples on the fast straight to help set up passes, but make every other part of the track MORE TECHNICAL. Slow these fuckers down.
12
1
SEE ARE125 10/3/2019 8:38pm
10/3/2019 8:38pm
I think SX should be even more technical than it is. Hear me out, because I know the SX tracks are fucking gnarly as is, but my theory is if the tracks are more technical, the overall speed is reduced, and in turn should lessen injuries. I think small, somewhat harmless, low speed timing mistakes may happen more frequently, which would allow more passing, and thus better racing.

IMO, what makes racing exciting is the inability to predict who is going to win. There are two kinds of racing that APPEAR to accomplish this, yet only one actually does. The first is “close” racing, which we’ve seen before where only 2 seconds separate 1st place and 4th place, but no one is able to make a pass because everyone is doing the exact same thing. The second is what I consider “good” racing, where someone is making a pass, then getting passed, then repassing again. Think the RC/JS/CR era where all 3 were swapping positions the whole main event. We saw it a couple times last year with Webb and Roczen. Frequent passes are what makes great racing for me. I think with a more technical track, it could cause Roczen to mistime a jump, ruining the whole section allowing Tomac to catch up and make a pass. Two sections later, Tomac mistimes and Roczen and Anderson pass him back. Positions are exchanged the entire race with absolutely no idea who is going to come out on top, and you’re yelling at your tv because either your guy made an awesome pass or your guy just got passed. To me, passing IS racing. So to answer your questions:

1. Yes.
2. Absolutely.
3. If done right, it should do the opposite.
4. Probably, unfortunately.


*To clarify, my definition of “more technical” doesn’t mean bigger, gnarlier, more dangerous jumps and/or rhythm sections. More technical just means more obstacles on the track to slow the overall pace down, and hopefully create more passing opportunities
5
SEE ARE125 10/3/2019 8:39pm
10/3/2019 8:39pm
peltier626 wrote:
Does being so technical make for better racing? Does it add to the value of the product? Does it increase the severity of injuries? Do these...
Does being so technical make for better racing? Does it add to the value of the product? Does it increase the severity of injuries? Do these spectacular crashes result in more A$$'s in the seats? Opinions please.
AussieParaMX wrote:
I think you seem to be equating technical as dangerous or something. In my opinions the tracks aren’t technical enough. Make it more technical and slow...
I think you seem to be equating technical as dangerous or something. In my opinions the tracks aren’t technical enough. Make it more technical and slow the pace down and make consistently getting through tough sections the aim of the game..... at the moment it’s technical and fast speeds. That’s a recipe for injuries.

Slow it down. Make whoops start 2 /3rds through the preceding corner so there’s no way to attack them with speed, ditto with Rythm sections. Make back side of jumps in rhythm sections mellow hut the lip side steeper to discourage high speed distance and make it more technical. Out one or two jumps/triples on the fast straight to help set up passes, but make every other part of the track MORE TECHNICAL. Slow these fuckers down.
You beat me to it. I was typing a novel. Laughing
CivBars
Profile picture for user CivBars
Posts
1472
Joined
4/13/2019
Location
USA
CivBars 10/3/2019 9:02pm
10/3/2019 9:02pm
CivBars wrote:
[img]https://p.vitalmx.com/photos/forums/2019/10/03/377450/s1200_whyso.jpg[/img] SX has to condense the speed and excitement of MX into a stadium and instead of going fast on staights you go high on jumps!


SX has to condense the speed and excitement of MX into a stadium and instead of going fast on staights you go high on jumps!
peltier626 wrote:
Could you accomplish the same thing with the design but without the extreme precision and so little room for error?
Probably. Let's make a stadium turn track and find out!
TSCHAM101
Profile picture for user TSCHAM101
Posts
1063
Joined
12/7/2015
Location
Norco, CA, USA
TSCHAM101 10/3/2019 10:29pm
10/3/2019 10:29pm
peltier626 wrote:
Does being so technical make for better racing? Does it add to the value of the product? Does it increase the severity of injuries? Do these...
Does being so technical make for better racing? Does it add to the value of the product? Does it increase the severity of injuries? Do these spectacular crashes result in more A$$'s in the seats? Opinions please.
todays tracks arent technical enough thats why they now quad so much and are going like 40-50mph through the rhythm lanes. the speed is what hurts guys..
2
1

Pit Row

See All »
aees
Profile picture for user aees
Posts
2857
Joined
8/20/2015
Location
USA
aees 10/3/2019 11:17pm
10/3/2019 11:17pm
CivBars wrote:
[img]https://p.vitalmx.com/photos/forums/2019/10/03/377450/s1200_whyso.jpg[/img] SX has to condense the speed and excitement of MX into a stadium and instead of going fast on staights you go high on jumps!


SX has to condense the speed and excitement of MX into a stadium and instead of going fast on staights you go high on jumps!
BMSOBx2 wrote:
Actually pretty close to the truth. In fact that's the best explanation I've heard. I hate it because they're all the same.
The development over the last 20 years has driven up speed and air time. It was more jumpy MX in the 90s and more close racing.

Today amature SX day rides a track not far from 90s.
Robgvx
Profile picture for user Robgvx
Posts
4093
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
GB
Robgvx 10/4/2019 3:15am
10/4/2019 3:15am
Track design dictates speed.
1
greenmx5
Profile picture for user greenmx5
Posts
1641
Joined
4/1/2014
Location
USA
greenmx5 10/4/2019 4:40am
10/4/2019 4:40am
These are professionals. You shouldn't see every guy in the night program doing the same rhythm sections. I like to see stuff where the cream rises to the top and only certain guys are pulling off a jump combo.
2
kkawboy14
Profile picture for user kkawboy14
Posts
11486
Joined
6/5/2015
Location
USA
kkawboy14 10/4/2019 5:23am
10/4/2019 5:23am
Sx: 30 feet approach to jump 90 feet

Mx: 90 feet approach to jump 30 feet

As I’ve gotten older I like the 90 to jump 30 deal
4
YZ324
Profile picture for user YZ324
Posts
368
Joined
6/26/2014
Location
Cypress, TX, USA
YZ324 10/4/2019 5:25am
10/4/2019 5:25am
kb228 wrote:
Also i prefer to watch professional riders go fast on a technical track that 99% of the population would wad themselves on.
peltier626 wrote:
Throughout the last couple of seasons a typical battle between riders last a couple of turns, very rarely a couple laps? Just curious as to what...
Throughout the last couple of seasons a typical battle between riders last a couple of turns, very rarely a couple laps? Just curious as to what provides good racing?
kb228 wrote:
Every triple crown.. tomac vs dungey in 17. Rv in 2011 and 12. Lots of good racing in sx. Ill admit 19 sx season was mostly...
Every triple crown.. tomac vs dungey in 17. Rv in 2011 and 12. Lots of good racing in sx. Ill admit 19 sx season was mostly a snooze fest. It comes and goes. That goes for outdoors too
The beginning of last season was exciting when Webb comes out of nowhere and steals wins from the likes of Roczen etc.
1
1
tingo
Profile picture for user tingo
Posts
1195
Joined
8/16/2016
Location
Orlando, FL, USA
tingo 10/4/2019 5:43am
10/4/2019 5:43am Edited Date/Time 10/4/2019 6:03am
greenmx5 wrote:
These are professionals. You shouldn't see every guy in the night program doing the same rhythm sections. I like to see stuff where the cream rises...
These are professionals. You shouldn't see every guy in the night program doing the same rhythm sections. I like to see stuff where the cream rises to the top and only certain guys are pulling off a jump combo.
That guy quietly retired.

As for the question posed in the thread title, the obvious answer is that the tracks are technical because it's the entire point of SX. Tight, technical courses that fit in a small space. I know I'm in the minority here, but I actually like watching SX a tiny bit more than MX. If it ain't broke...
2
brimx153
Profile picture for user brimx153
Posts
3344
Joined
5/3/2012
Location
IE
brimx153 10/4/2019 11:52am
10/4/2019 11:52am
peltier626 wrote:
Does being so technical make for better racing? Does it add to the value of the product? Does it increase the severity of injuries? Do these...
Does being so technical make for better racing? Does it add to the value of the product? Does it increase the severity of injuries? Do these spectacular crashes result in more A$$'s in the seats? Opinions please.
TSCHAM101 wrote:
todays tracks arent technical enough thats why they now quad so much and are going like 40-50mph through the rhythm lanes. the speed is what hurts...
todays tracks arent technical enough thats why they now quad so much and are going like 40-50mph through the rhythm lanes. the speed is what hurts guys..
No way in hell are they ever doing 40 - 50 mph through rhythm lanes . Be lucky to be 30 . Speed is not the problem. I d much rather fall from 10 feet high at 60 mph . Than 60 feet high at 10 mph .
1
peltier626 10/4/2019 1:34pm
10/4/2019 1:34pm Edited Date/Time 10/4/2019 1:35pm
SEE ARE125 wrote:
I think SX should be even more technical than it is. Hear me out, because I know the SX tracks are fucking gnarly as is, but...
I think SX should be even more technical than it is. Hear me out, because I know the SX tracks are fucking gnarly as is, but my theory is if the tracks are more technical, the overall speed is reduced, and in turn should lessen injuries. I think small, somewhat harmless, low speed timing mistakes may happen more frequently, which would allow more passing, and thus better racing.

IMO, what makes racing exciting is the inability to predict who is going to win. There are two kinds of racing that APPEAR to accomplish this, yet only one actually does. The first is “close” racing, which we’ve seen before where only 2 seconds separate 1st place and 4th place, but no one is able to make a pass because everyone is doing the exact same thing. The second is what I consider “good” racing, where someone is making a pass, then getting passed, then repassing again. Think the RC/JS/CR era where all 3 were swapping positions the whole main event. We saw it a couple times last year with Webb and Roczen. Frequent passes are what makes great racing for me. I think with a more technical track, it could cause Roczen to mistime a jump, ruining the whole section allowing Tomac to catch up and make a pass. Two sections later, Tomac mistimes and Roczen and Anderson pass him back. Positions are exchanged the entire race with absolutely no idea who is going to come out on top, and you’re yelling at your tv because either your guy made an awesome pass or your guy just got passed. To me, passing IS racing. So to answer your questions:

1. Yes.
2. Absolutely.
3. If done right, it should do the opposite.
4. Probably, unfortunately.


*To clarify, my definition of “more technical” doesn’t mean bigger, gnarlier, more dangerous jumps and/or rhythm sections. More technical just means more obstacles on the track to slow the overall pace down, and hopefully create more passing opportunities
I agree. Speeds, inertia and distances/heights have gotten excessive over time. I know you can't stop things from evolving, just wondering if it's been an overall good thing for the sport as a whole. I absolutely agree about the two types of close racing you described. I think the latter is what i prefer. Could the tracks be slowed down without undermining the "show" and would that help with racing and injuries? Or have we too much power and capabilities out of the modern day motocross bike?
kkawboy14
Profile picture for user kkawboy14
Posts
11486
Joined
6/5/2015
Location
USA
kkawboy14 10/4/2019 1:39pm
10/4/2019 1:39pm
Very few people are getting hurt on the BIG jumps in stadiums, so imop they need to go bigger with less whoops
1
DPR250R
Profile picture for user DPR250R
Posts
2186
Joined
9/14/2006
Location
USA
DPR250R 10/4/2019 2:48pm
10/4/2019 2:48pm
tingo wrote:
That guy quietly retired. As for the question posed in the thread title, the obvious answer is that the tracks are technical because it's the entire...
That guy quietly retired.

As for the question posed in the thread title, the obvious answer is that the tracks are technical because it's the entire point of SX. Tight, technical courses that fit in a small space. I know I'm in the minority here, but I actually like watching SX a tiny bit more than MX. If it ain't broke...
I will go for the downvote title and say I like watching the Triple Crown SX format, then MX then regular SX.

I am not into the heats/qualifiers. I just want to watch points paying races.
1
blockhead17
Profile picture for user blockhead17
Posts
2855
Joined
6/13/2018
Location
Tokyo, JP
blockhead17 10/4/2019 6:02pm
10/4/2019 6:02pm
Wish they would ban whoops that are quicker to jump through
3
1
Suzuki203 10/4/2019 6:27pm
10/4/2019 6:27pm
Someone lent me vhs copies of the entire 91 super cross series... to me those tracks seemed infinitely better. More technical, and allowed to get rough which slowed down the racing but made it closer.
1

Post a reply to: Supercross, why so technical?