Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
I like my 125, but I'd give racing a 100cc class a try.
common denominator is traction.. turn throttle go. no spinning, no wheelies. and the weight cannot help.
You’re missing the point of this topic and how it translates to physics. You’re focusing on the forces a rider has imparted on them during a crash. Which somewhat makes sense because that’s the world you live in with your products. Force = mass x acceleration.
But what you’re failing to recognize is that people are saying the problem is with the higher energy levels due to higher velocities. Kinetic Energy = 1/2 mass * velocity^2. You can see that it’s literally an exponential problem. If you double the speed your kinetic energy goes up 4x. Conservation of energy requires that in a crash, all that kinetic energy of the riders motion has to go into a different form. So in your protection world it’s going to result in higher forces that you’re trying to distribute out over larger areas and times with your products to lower the impact to the body.
To simplify it back to your example. Would you rather have to have your products protect a rider being high sided into a wall going 10mph or 20mph? Would you rather the former, or the later one where they’re carrying 4x the energy into that crash. What scenario will your product have a higher likelihood of a providing a positive outcome for the rider?
I hope that if you have any say in the industry you’ll hear what people are saying here. We want less overall energy going into crashes, especially for our kids. And you do that by lowering velocity (speed).
People can lower their velocity with their right wrist. Or because it’s racing and we know the mentality of racers and fearless kids, you do that by limiting the capabilities of the machine as has been historically done by many sanctioning bodies in all different forms of racing.
As long as there is gravity we have crashes. At any speed. And in every imaginable configuration of variables.
Life changing injuries can and do still happen at low speeds. And people can walk away at high speeds. The opposites are also true. Increasing speed works in an equation, but that doesn’t mean it’s always the contributing factor in practice.
After we slash speeds, displacements, jumps, and everything else we will still have people hitting the ground, so again we are back at the need for protection.
The Shop
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
We had a moto bro stay with us for 4 months after a similar injury. And he was a stud - former Ranger, serious athlete. Shorted a 90 foot gap jump he shouldn’t have been trying. I personally carried his ass to the shower and back for a few weeks. My wife was a hero - she never questioned my decision to bring him to our house for recovery. He’s an awesome dude, a leader of men, and a great influence on my son. Brutal injury and recovery.
edit. We met thru vital. 😁
As a father of a young racer it ain’t that easy. A fast kid, racing other fast kids in front of 1000 people (PiR on a slow night) it’s all about speed. Hell I STILL can’t turn that switch off when I get on the gate. It’s like football - controlled violence. You have to give 100% and fear be dammed. Me and my kid talked about fear and how to manage it. And overcome it to go fast. Damn this sport.
FFS, this is frustrating. To take your argument to its logical conclusion we should wear protection while walking down the street. People can and do fall and injure themselves while walking and will keep doing so because of gravity (hell, I once broke my arm slipping on ice just outside of my house). Some people run really fast and fall and suffer no injuries, while others suffer catastrophic injuries when walking very slowly. So we should disregard speed and just wear protection to protect ourselves from injury.
JAB kindly explained why speed matters, and you didn’t acknowledge, let alone address what he said. You’re clearly not interested in deviating from your script - which is puzzling. I don’t know why you need it. You could just say: “it’s futile to roll back technology and restrict access to certain machines, so protect yourself with good safety equipment, which you can buy from us,” I have no problem with that - you have a product to promote, and you believe that it will help people. Instead we get a sales pitch couched in a lousy physics lesson.
You say;
“Life changing injuries can and do still happen at low speeds. And people can walk away at high speeds. The opposites are also true.”
The above is true but you’re drawing the wrong inference from it: It can be true that speed isn’t necessary for injury (you can have injuries without speed) and it’s not sufficient (you can have speed without injuries) while also being true that it increases risk of injury - and for reasons that are completely explicable, and even if your script doesn’t allow for that. It’s a common mistake: E.g. I know someone who never smoked and died of lung cancer and my uncle smoked 2 packs a day and lived to 100 so I’m going to smoke. So yeah, smoking is neither necessary nor sufficient for getting lung cancer but it does increase your risk. That’s what people are worried about.
Your statement is factually incorrect. It works in an equation because it is what happens in practice. That’s how equations are derived and proved, through scientific study of the real world. It is a fundamental concept from the laws of physics.
I’m not saying speed is the only factor in the outcome of a crash. But it’s a big one that grows exponentially so therefore is a large contributor to the outcome. You want to quickly make a big improvement to rider safety. Lower the speeds as proposed by the title of this thread.
I agree we will always need protection. And protection technology has improved recently. But the speeds (energy) we’re at now result in forces that seem to be beyond the capabilities of the human body in too many crashes, even in conjunction with the advanced current protection products.
Lower the speeds to lower the crash forces down to a low enough level to only cause severe enough injuries in a smaller percentage of crashes that people are still willing to risk their and their families health participating in our sport.
Hear what people have actually been saying here. They don’t know if they want to ride or have their family ride anymore. These are your potential customers saying directly in front of you that the current risk-reward doesn’t make sense to them. Your customers are walking away and all i hear is “use more protection products, it’ll be alright…” Problem is, what people are seeing happening, doesn’t look alright.
As long as everyone knows the risks & consequences, then they have no grounds to complain if it goes wrong. You knew what you were getting yourself in to. Both of you.
It’s the risk vs reward factor. If it’s worth it to you, I understand. When that day comes it’s no longer worth it, I also understand.
I do a lot of road cycling. People comment about how risky it is out on the roads now. I know it. But the reward I get from it outweighs the risk (in my current opinion) when I’m no longer feeling that reward, I’ll no longer take that risk.
Here’s something to think about- what if one day you no longer feel the reward necessary to take the risk, but your son does? And he relies on you to pay for it and take him? What a position to be in.😬
Risk reward, everyone knows what they're getting into, you mitigate risk with your right hand..... it all sounds good but doesn't address the issue at all.
Racers are going to race and use the power available to them whether it's a good idea or not. They wouldn't be racers if they weren't going to do that. So saying this is essentially telling people to stop riding and racing.
Same with accepting the risk going in. This thread is full of people acknowledging the risk and telling you they don't think it's worth it anymore. They did the calculation and quit.
These attitudes are motivated mostly by pride and wanting to feel like a badass for riding and racing but they are going to lead to a sport with far less people choosing to participate at a time when tracks are already struggling to stay open and the costs to participate continue to rise.
Not addressing this issue and shifting the equation a little more in the direction of safety is just giving people another reason to do something else with their time, money, and body.
What if we did go down the route of making bikes slower?
Manufacturers no longer need to develop. (They only develop stuff so riders can go faster.)
If bikes stop developing, people stop buying. We can all just ride our 10-20 year old bikes.
If people stop buying, manufacturers stop producing.
If manufacturers stop producing, then what??
It simply wouldn’t work.
Another thought- remember when F1 used slick tyres, but then moved to grooved tyres?
They did this so the cars had less grip. Less grip meant slower corner speed.
What if we had less grip?
I think the answer lays in the tracks.
It can go either way- either tracks could be made so much easier, so the chance of error is so much less..
or…
The tracks could be made so much more savage, so that it’s so much harder to get a high-speed.
both of these would work.
The tracks get so much more “savage” that it makes things safer. Got it.
Yep! Stupid rough! Far far beyond what we consider ‘rough’ right now.
So rough it’s impossible to build & high speed. Surely you can use your imagination and comprehend that??
Just like other motorsports, if we limit certain things like displacement, sound levels, etc.., but not horsepower directly, we still provide manufacturers with the ability to innovate and compete.
Slowing down the bikes is actually good for the industry, because over the course of 4-5 years, many people are going to buy the new bikes, and along with that new pipes, etc...
Manufacturers will still need to innovate, just with a different set of requirements.
So you’re calling for smaller displacement, more highly stressed engines?
How does that work out for the amateur guy?
All the while… manufacturers will still be learning how to go faster & faster…
What big changes have been made to modern 450s? Yamaha turning the engine around 15 years ago? Electric start? Most of what makes up the press releases for the new models would be just as applicable to less powerful bikes and manufacturers still sell plenty of bold new graphics bikes every year.
Pit Row
Go ride a 2010 450 and see if you can tell the difference.
Development is slow, changes are small, but over the course of a decade or two, bikes are much better, and riders are going faster.
the purpose of every single new model release is convince buyers this model is better than the last one. And by ‘better’ they mean faster- this is racing after all,.
If this ‘we’re slowing things down’ takes ahold, what are manufacturers going to say?
“Refined chassis to aid handling- you’ll definitely go slower with this”
“Lower RPM ceiling- this will definitely make you go slower”
Who is going to want to buy??🤷♀️
Nothing will get lighter. Nothing will get easier to ride. Nothing will give better traction. Nothing will improve handling- because all of these things result in going faster.
The only single benefit I can think of would less maintenance- because of the less stressed engines and more durable (heavier) components.
The manufacturers are not going to go for this.
That is called Endurocross, and to me personally, it is as boring as checkers. Sad, but true.
Yeah, let’s all just pretend human innovation peaked and we should start detuning everything because Timmy can’t handle a throttle. By that logic, maybe we should go back to rotary phones, steam engines, and flint tools too.
Dirt bikes getting slower is not evolution - that’s extinction with extra steps.
The professional motocross that we see and enjoy today would simply not be possible without young kids progressing through the ccs at a very early age, ultimately excelling on a 250 before entering the pros.
What I was trying to illustrate is that speed is not always relevant to injury. If we can get hurt without speed, maybe we have to look beyond speed.
Even a fully neutered sport will not eliminate human error, crashing, or injuries. So long as we are hitting the ground, protection is the only logical conclusion that solves for all other variables that lead up to the crash. To think we will prevent crashing by neutering the sport is a fools errand.
100%. We are not complaining. We both, at different times, decided that the risk outweighed the rewards. So I stopped MX completely, and he is on a break that may or may not be permanent. His call.
Your last one is moot to us, as he's an adult now (about to be 19) and makes his own decisions. If he was still a minor, it's my call, not his. We've had that discussion before, and he chose to keep riding/racing and I paid for it. My requirement was that he had to make the effort in school, nutrition, exercise, and learning to maintain his bikes. From age 15-18 we averaged 120 gate drops a year in 125 and 250 B/C classes, and there were times he showed serious speed and as his Dad it was a joy to watch him excel. We had 14 years of great times at the track, and our share of bad ones too. Wouldn't trade it for the world. Now if we could just break 90 regularly at golf.....
The problem with physics equations in this application is that they do not solve for injury. The equation is bulletproof when the variables they include are the only factors, but they aren't.
In practice, a high speed crash may not result in injury, even if the forces should be exponentially higher due to speed (swapping and being ejected down a fast strait). Conversely, a low speed crash should have lower forces, but could be catastrophic (like Jerry Robin).
All scenarios exist because there are so many factors. The only constant is that people are hitting the ground and getting injured, at all speeds... so we should dress for the occasion.
By using "neutering" as your descriptor of choice, you're poisoning the well: - using negative language to discredit something with which you disagree, thereby prejudicing the audience. There have been some suggestions that I consider rather sensible: Classes for kids 16 and under limited to 125 2 stroke (to avoid putting a 120 pound 15 year old on a race modified 250f), and eliminating 450 beginner or C classes. I think these kinds of measures can make a difference. This hits close to home for me. I put my teenage son on my 350 before he was ready for it and I regret it as the result was a compression fracture in a vertebrae when he twisted the throttle too much and overjumped (he's healed but his back still bothers him occasionally). After that, I restricted him to a 144 2 stroke because on a small bore 2 stroke, he wouldn't have been able to hit the jump that fast and overjump it. The 350 allowed him to simply twist the throttle and hit the jump way too fast, even though he didn't have the skill to carry corner speed. So yes, excessive speed was exactly the cause of that injury and that speed wouldn't have been possible on a bike more suited to his skill level. As adults, it's up to us to not put our children in situations of excessive risk, and I feel that I made a mistake as a parent by letting him ride that bike. Is it "neutering" the sport to make classes that match riders to machines appropriate for age and skill?
I agree that adults should be able to choose to ride whatever they want. I ride a 450 myself, and I'm a slow old fart. who doesn't "need" a 450, but I like the easy to ride torquey character of the bike. I don't want anyone forbidding me to own a 450. And of course, injury can happen even if you ride slow, so it's wise to wear appropriate protection. I doubt anyone here would dispute that. But to simply dismiss out of hand any other possibilities is narrow minded silliness.
As electric bikes become more readily available this will be even more of an issue. Any noob can buy a Stark and set it to 80 HP and go out and twist the throttle and it all feels easy until he wad himself up. I've seen it happen - first practice lap the Stark is cartwheeling down the track and the guy was done for the day. Again, an adult can do what he wants. But a culture where someone maybe encourages the guy to take it easy and get used to it at reduced power seems preferable over one in which we say that speed doesn't matter, just dress for the crash.
My apologies, if this has already been brought up. Wasn’t at the beginning of the 4 stroke area , the goal was to bring in the 4 strokes and find that balance where they were on par with the 2 strokes? Well that idea seemed to immediately be put on the back burner. They started with the 400cc then 426cc and then 450cc. Wasn’t the intent to be where a rider could then choose what type of power plant they wanted to run 2 stroke or 4 stroke? The intent wasn’t to bring up racing speeds…. I don’t remember anyone ever complaining that the 125 and 250 T’s were too slow and the racing was boring. JM2C….
There are many great suggestions that could and should be implemented - maybe some of them will help - but none of them eliminate crashing. Which is why it inevitably comes down to protection.
Trying to convince the entire sport, manufacturers, tracks, promoters, sanctioning bodies, etc to modify rules will be a very long, challenging, and disagreeable road as the injuries continue to stack up. I am simply trying to encourage individuals to make good choices about protection for themselves, right now, today. Doesn't have to be ours, and not a sales pitch. It's the only line of defence we can implement today, without interfering with freedom of choice, or the current bike/class structure.
Excellent thoughts. Golf Clap to you Sir…💯👏
I've been around this game for a long time and I tell you, the factories ain't gonna change their products.
The solution is with the track owners, slow the fricken tracks down...it's that fucking simple!
Really, really simple and I assure you the racing will be good if not better....
@dcoombs
Part of the innovation is endurance. If Manufacturer A's engines are failing, riders will be buying Manufacturer B, C, D and E's bikes.
Indy did it. The maximum displacement is 2.2L in a V6 configuration, with twin turbo. Because of the rule changes, the companies figured out how to make smaller, more efficient engines that are also robust. The manufacturers should be able to figure this out.
If we set a maximum horsepower, stock ECU requirement, people can work around it.
I also don't see how we would enforce Maximum HP, especially at amateur races. I believe that would require every bike hitting a dyno before and after each moto, assuming they didn't simply have a different mapping on the ECU for test, or a hacked, OEM looking ECU.
If we should somehow manage to pin HP, while leaving displacement alone for engine reliability, what would be the difference between bikes?Just the color? I know that suspension and handling matter, but we'd be crippling the industry's ability to differentiate, and there reason to innovate.
Setting maximum displacement, plus maybe other factors, then letting them design within the new rules, while effectively lowering the overall speed is a better solution.
Post a reply to: It’s time to slow bikes down