It’s time to slow bikes down

Radical wrote:

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...

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.

Thisusernameisavailable wrote:

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...

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…

Radical wrote:

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...

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.

Thisusernameisavailable wrote:

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...

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. 

 

truck wrote:

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...

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. 

Thisusernameisavailable wrote:

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...

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.

Thisusernameisavailable wrote:

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...

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…

Radical wrote:

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...

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.

Thisusernameisavailable wrote:

You’re aware we already have maximum displacements, right? So what are you asking for? Smaller displacements throughout? But you’re still allowing manufacturers to develop them for more HP??And...

You’re aware we already have maximum displacements, right? 

So what are you asking for? Smaller displacements throughout? 

But you’re still allowing manufacturers to develop them for more HP??

And you’re still allowing them to cut weight? 

You think their service life will get longer? It won’t. This new breed of machinery will be lighter, more highly strung & have ultra short service lives. And don’t go to the next manufacturer- their bike is the same. And the next and the next . 

This won’t work.

MPJC wrote:

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...

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. 

Kenny Banyan wrote:

Excellent thoughts. Golf Clap to you Sir…💯👏

Radical wrote:

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...

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.

Thisusernameisavailable wrote:

You’re aware we already have maximum displacements, right? So what are you asking for? Smaller displacements throughout? But you’re still allowing manufacturers to develop them for more HP??And...

You’re aware we already have maximum displacements, right? 

So what are you asking for? Smaller displacements throughout? 

But you’re still allowing manufacturers to develop them for more HP??

And you’re still allowing them to cut weight? 

You think their service life will get longer? It won’t. This new breed of machinery will be lighter, more highly strung & have ultra short service lives. And don’t go to the next manufacturer- their bike is the same. And the next and the next . 

This won’t work.

Radical wrote:

I disagree.  It will work.  Auto manufacturers have already done it.

JAB wrote:

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...

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.

AtlasBrace wrote:

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 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. 

Thisusernameisavailable wrote:

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...

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. 

 

truck wrote:

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...

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. 

Thisusernameisavailable wrote:

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...

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.

truck wrote:

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...

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. 

Thisusernameisavailable wrote:

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...

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.

truck wrote:

So your answer is a bunch of vague statements about them just being better now but you can't tell me how or why? Just that they've...

So your answer is a bunch of vague statements about them just being better now but you can't tell me how or why? Just that they've progressed and gotten better? 

But for some reason you don't think that same progression would be found if manufacturers spent 15 years perfecting the 150 4 stroke or bikes made within a different set of parameters? 

It's just nonsense. Bikes progress now in very small increments within the parameters set and they'd continue to incrementally progress and get better year by year if that set of parameters changed. 250 2 strokes didn't stop getting better when manufacturers stopped making 500s....... 

Zycki11 wrote:

When a 250f can jump a 65ft triple from a dead stop out of a turn……. I’m all for power, but you restrict it, and the...

When a 250f can jump a 65ft triple from a dead stop out of a turn……. I’m all for power, but you restrict it, and the lads will get more aggressive and the racing will be better. 

 

OEMs will never do it. 250/350 and be done. 450 is a bit much due to the chassis and suspension handling the forces with ease. 

truck wrote:

So your answer is a bunch of vague statements about them just being better now but you can't tell me how or why? Just that they've...

So your answer is a bunch of vague statements about them just being better now but you can't tell me how or why? Just that they've progressed and gotten better? 

But for some reason you don't think that same progression would be found if manufacturers spent 15 years perfecting the 150 4 stroke or bikes made within a different set of parameters? 

It's just nonsense. Bikes progress now in very small increments within the parameters set and they'd continue to incrementally progress and get better year by year if that set of parameters changed. 250 2 strokes didn't stop getting better when manufacturers stopped making 500s....... 

Thisusernameisavailable wrote:

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...

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.

truck wrote:

So your answer is a bunch of vague statements about them just being better now but you can't tell me how or why? Just that they've...

So your answer is a bunch of vague statements about them just being better now but you can't tell me how or why? Just that they've progressed and gotten better? 

But for some reason you don't think that same progression would be found if manufacturers spent 15 years perfecting the 150 4 stroke or bikes made within a different set of parameters? 

It's just nonsense. Bikes progress now in very small increments within the parameters set and they'd continue to incrementally progress and get better year by year if that set of parameters changed. 250 2 strokes didn't stop getting better when manufacturers stopped making 500s....... 

Thisusernameisavailable wrote:

If they werent better/faster/easier to go faster on, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation, would we? The sport would be as safe now as it was...

If they werent better/faster/easier to go faster on, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation, would we? 

The sport would be as safe now as it was decades ago. 

Suspension development- is allowing riders to travel faster.

Tyre development- is allowing riders to travel faster.

Chassis development- is allowing riders to travel faster.

Motor development- is allowing riders to travel faster. 

Do you agree with these statements??

truck wrote:

So your answer is a bunch of vague statements about them just being better now but you can't tell me how or why? Just that they've...

So your answer is a bunch of vague statements about them just being better now but you can't tell me how or why? Just that they've progressed and gotten better? 

But for some reason you don't think that same progression would be found if manufacturers spent 15 years perfecting the 150 4 stroke or bikes made within a different set of parameters? 

It's just nonsense. Bikes progress now in very small increments within the parameters set and they'd continue to incrementally progress and get better year by year if that set of parameters changed. 250 2 strokes didn't stop getting better when manufacturers stopped making 500s....... 

Thisusernameisavailable wrote:

Having re-read your response, I’m confused by your angle. I absolutely do not think we should be having smaller displacements & still allow development. I’ve stated elsewhere in...

Having re-read your response, I’m confused by your angle. 

I absolutely do not think we should be having smaller displacements & still allow development. 

I’ve stated elsewhere in this thread that will just give us more highly stressed, short life-span engines. 

truck wrote:

So your answer is a bunch of vague statements about them just being better now but you can't tell me how or why? Just that they've...

So your answer is a bunch of vague statements about them just being better now but you can't tell me how or why? Just that they've progressed and gotten better? 

But for some reason you don't think that same progression would be found if manufacturers spent 15 years perfecting the 150 4 stroke or bikes made within a different set of parameters? 

It's just nonsense. Bikes progress now in very small increments within the parameters set and they'd continue to incrementally progress and get better year by year if that set of parameters changed. 250 2 strokes didn't stop getting better when manufacturers stopped making 500s....... 

Thisusernameisavailable wrote:

If they werent better/faster/easier to go faster on, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation, would we? The sport would be as safe now as it was...

If they werent better/faster/easier to go faster on, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation, would we? 

The sport would be as safe now as it was decades ago. 

Suspension development- is allowing riders to travel faster.

Tyre development- is allowing riders to travel faster.

Chassis development- is allowing riders to travel faster.

Motor development- is allowing riders to travel faster. 

Do you agree with these statements??

truck wrote:

Yes, but you're missing the point. Bikes will continue to progress and be sold just as they are now if the parameters set for racing them...

Yes, but you're missing the point. Bikes will continue to progress and be sold just as they are now if the parameters set for racing them are changed to bring the speeds down. All of the dynamics stay the same except the parameters they have to adhere to to race. 

I'm not saying bikes today aren't in any way better, I'm saying the ways in which they are better are through minor tweaks and improvements that can also be applied to a 125 or 150 or bike with rev limiter or strict sound levels or a million other things. 

The fears that changing some things to slow bikes down will in some way drastically change the industry or the sport just aren't justified. It's just fear of change. 

HonDawg17 wrote:

Go back to 125 and 250 2-strokes. Majority of crash problems gone. Ask McGrath. He was the first guy to say the 4 strokes just have...

Go back to 125 and 250 2-strokes. Majority of crash problems gone. Ask McGrath. He was the first guy to say the 4 strokes just have too much weigh and inertia. Have the same exact crash/speed on both bikes, it's still way worse on the 4 stroke.

Zycki11 wrote:

When a 250f can jump a 65ft triple from a dead stop out of a turn……. I’m all for power, but you restrict it, and the...

When a 250f can jump a 65ft triple from a dead stop out of a turn……. I’m all for power, but you restrict it, and the lads will get more aggressive and the racing will be better. 

 

OEMs will never do it. 250/350 and be done. 450 is a bit much due to the chassis and suspension handling the forces with ease. 

Jeremy Macduff wrote:

250Fs don’t choose to jump 65’ triples on their own free-will.

Again, this ultimately comes down to rider control and judgment.

 

arebnac wrote:

or do like me and just watch the emx125. its perfect, honestly

JB 19 wrote:

I didn't read all of this,  but let's just slow the tracks down.   The bikes are wild fast and the handling is incredible,  but we...

I didn't read all of this,  but let's just slow the tracks down.   The bikes are wild fast and the handling is incredible,  but we can make tighter sections, put in wall jumps and speed checks and basically tighten the tracks up.  make them rougher and place more importance  on rider skill, not bike horsepower. Reduce the importance of power and sway the importance to handling.  The manufacturers don't want to slow the bikes down,  but we can slow them down by tightening the tracks up

By doing this you will also see riders move to less powerful easier to ride bikes that also turn better. 

280driver wrote:

https://www.wtvr.com/news/local-news/taylor-seay-obit-july-8-2025

Another sad reminder that our sport is dangerous.

Kawboy14! wrote:

200 and 375?

Tumic wrote:

Where should you practice big jumps so you can do it before you have to do it on a race track if not on the practice...

Where should you practice big jumps so you can do it before you have to do it on a race track if not on the practice track?.

Different riders and ages have different needs on a track. If you build a real racetrack the VET riders complain, if you tame it down the riders that compete complain. 

And not all clubs have the land and resources to build multiple tracks. So you build a track to suit as much riders as possible but you always end up with unsatisfied riders no matter what you do.

I have built a couple of tracks and helped some clubs with new track design and both building and re-building old tracks and it’s always the same problem to find the perfect happy medium. 

Gravel wrote:

Has anyone seen a track built with alternate lines to go around big jumps? Merging the two lines back together could get interesting, but that would...

Has anyone seen a track built with alternate lines to go around big jumps? Merging the two lines back together could get interesting, but that would keep the jumpers and us older “grounded” riders happy..

cloud41 wrote:

Motoland in Kingsbury, IN has this in a 3 jump section, but unfortunately the owner is MIA - great tracks.