MXGP Finland - WTF - I Don’t Know Man…

JnDubZ
Posts
201
Joined
9/29/2022
Location
AU
7/14/2025 10:14pm
Falcon wrote:
16 active MX2 riders? What's to stop a guy like me from flying to Europe, renting a bike and taking 17th overall in my one and only...

16 active MX2 riders? 

What's to stop a guy like me from flying to Europe, renting a bike and taking 17th overall in my one and only GP race? 

The only thing stopping you would be the entry fee haha. Probably cheaper for the flights/bike hire/accommodation and living expenses than it is for just the entry fee. I feel like teams would happily attend all races if the entry fee wasn't an arm and a leg. 

rym
Posts
457
Joined
8/23/2023
Location
Milan, MI IT
7/14/2025 11:35pm
JnDubZ wrote:
The only thing stopping you would be the entry fee haha. Probably cheaper for the flights/bike hire/accommodation and living expenses than it is for just the...

The only thing stopping you would be the entry fee haha. Probably cheaper for the flights/bike hire/accommodation and living expenses than it is for just the entry fee. I feel like teams would happily attend all races if the entry fee wasn't an arm and a leg. 

The entry fee is 300 euro. That isnt an arm and a leg and isnt stopping it. 

If you are from Lommel it is a 27 hour trip (as in non stop driving). It simply makes no sense for a privateer who isnt doing the full championship (since you dont do the fly-aways) to do races in Finland or Turkey.

Just one example of things that have an impact: the dad or friend who joins as your mechanic has to take of a full week off from work due to the travel. That is very doable if you do 3 wildcards a year, but when you do 10+ GPs its impossible for most. 

4
Motofinne
Posts
11396
Joined
1/4/2014
Location
FI
7/14/2025 11:36pm
Falcon wrote:
16 active MX2 riders? What's to stop a guy like me from flying to Europe, renting a bike and taking 17th overall in my one and only...

16 active MX2 riders? 

What's to stop a guy like me from flying to Europe, renting a bike and taking 17th overall in my one and only GP race? 

JnDubZ wrote:
The only thing stopping you would be the entry fee haha. Probably cheaper for the flights/bike hire/accommodation and living expenses than it is for just the...

The only thing stopping you would be the entry fee haha. Probably cheaper for the flights/bike hire/accommodation and living expenses than it is for just the entry fee. I feel like teams would happily attend all races if the entry fee wasn't an arm and a leg. 

Dude, the entry fee hasn't been a hurdle for years now. Wild card entry fee is about 300€ which in the grand scheme of things is nothing in the budget of a full year of racing.

Many things are wrong in the GPs but the entry fee aint it anymore, that argument is dated.

1
Cortami79
Posts
1906
Joined
1/11/2016
Location
NL
7/14/2025 11:59pm
Falcon wrote:
16 active MX2 riders? What's to stop a guy like me from flying to Europe, renting a bike and taking 17th overall in my one and only...

16 active MX2 riders? 

What's to stop a guy like me from flying to Europe, renting a bike and taking 17th overall in my one and only GP race? 

JnDubZ wrote:
The only thing stopping you would be the entry fee haha. Probably cheaper for the flights/bike hire/accommodation and living expenses than it is for just the...

The only thing stopping you would be the entry fee haha. Probably cheaper for the flights/bike hire/accommodation and living expenses than it is for just the entry fee. I feel like teams would happily attend all races if the entry fee wasn't an arm and a leg. 

Motofinne wrote:
Dude, the entry fee hasn't been a hurdle for years now. Wild card entry fee is about 300€ which in the grand scheme of things is...

Dude, the entry fee hasn't been a hurdle for years now. Wild card entry fee is about 300€ which in the grand scheme of things is nothing in the budget of a full year of racing.

Many things are wrong in the GPs but the entry fee aint it anymore, that argument is dated.

The problem is that riders with the calibre to ride themselves to a 15th-20th place (with the few rare occassions that we have a full starting gate), don't get any money or recognisition. Cornelius Tondel had a 4th place finish last year at Agueda, and he didn't earn shit. So why bother to keep doing GPs? He now attends a few nationals (with a Swedish based team) and actually earned a bit of money doing so. 

In the ideal world, a privateer qualifying for a GP would mean him that he get's break-even on costs being made. Getting into the top 20 would mean that he earns a decent living.

I understand that factory teams go for big rigs and facilities, sure you want to make sure that your sponsors and brand are represented well. But there are instances where even MXGP limits their exposure due to parking restrictions. In Arnhem teams are only allowed to have an 'x' amount of trucks in the paddock. So it shows that it shouldn't be an excuse to host GPs at more decent tracks. The problem is that most tracks/clubs are not willing to go for that financial risk, unless the government steps in. I keep giving Arnhem as an example, as I'm Dutch. But the track owner of Arnhem is known for being wealthy (and crazy) enough to be willing to have that financial risk, and for the past two years it paid off. Maybe there are a few more clubs that have the financial buffer to go that far, but the list isn't too long.

The problem is, this situation is going on for about 20 years. Just look into the results page of MXGP. how many riders were allowed to qualify in 2004? 30? Back then you had 15 GPs, with 2 of them overseas. Now we have 20 GPs with 5 overseas  

6

The Shop

JnDubZ
Posts
201
Joined
9/29/2022
Location
AU
7/15/2025 12:11am

My bad I thought the entry fees were still ridiculous. At least that's something they sorted and made better for everyone.

4
7/15/2025 1:35am Edited Date/Time 7/15/2025 1:46am
aees wrote:
I can tell you never organized a national or bigger event.You have up to 40 riders in MXGP. 40 in Mx2. 50-60 in 125. 40 in...

I can tell you never organized a national or bigger event.

You have up to 40 riders in MXGP. 40 in Mx2. 50-60 in 125. 40 in Women. 50-60 in EMX 250. On a good day it's just 150 to deal with. On a bad day it's 250 with all classes.

It was over 180 in Finland so not sure of your mathskillss.

You need parking areas and ground conditions for a shit load of trucks plus easy access in and out for material. You need to be able to meet requirements for clearing the area in case of emergency for up to 20k visitors. Cities need to provide clearance and so does local police. Just the area for teams is huge when we are talking about 250 riders. A smaller event with good w ather you will get 20k visitors during weekend, 15k unique ones.

Around 10.000 hotel nights is required. The organizer shall be able to facili over 500 people to work during the event (we have had around 200-250 for national events).

Wash racks is needed. I can tell you that is not an easy thing for 300 riders. Ive done it for 200+ riders and we needed 40 wash racks built up with drainage. This needs to be close to pit area.

The city, or a private entity, needs to issue financial warranties towards the club because they don't have the means to take a hit if it rains and it generate a negative result.

How many do you think have the infrastructure to handle such an event? I can tell you it's not that many.

...and I can tell you never went to a GP in the 80's or 90's...You could have anything up to 150 riders trying to qualify for...

...and I can tell you never went to a GP in the 80's or 90's...

You could have anything up to 150 riders trying to qualify for one class along with support races, non qualifier races etc, and that's before they started combining classes meaning multiple groups for qualifying. Don't even get me started on crowd numbers compared to today.

"You need parking areas for a shit load of trucks" - and there's issue number 1; the track takes second place to the car park because of all the huge rigs. They find a car park first then try to crowbar a track around it. How many classic tracks have been binned to be replaced by faceless flat areas with sand trucked in.?

Everything else you mention is stuff that's been made "neccessary" at the expense of decent tracks. It's no good having awesome background facilities if there's no room left for a decent track. It's the tail wagging the dog. By all means keep going down a corporate dead-end trying to make the sport "professional" but how's that working out.? Empty start gates, no spectators, and people switching off the TV. They don't tune in to compare race trucks and facilities..

aees wrote:
I can tell you that 20 years ago early 2000 there was around 75-80 riders in total in 3 classes (30+27+19).  There was 32 in MX2...

I can tell you that 20 years ago early 2000 there was around 75-80 riders in total in 3 classes (30+27+19).  There was 32 in MX2 so two extra was there that didnt qualify. Data is there, took the time to look over it.
 
Not sure what you are going at, but its not the promotors fault that campers, riders and factory teams have gone to bigger rigs, is it? So blame yourself and the people around you for there being a need for certain infrastructure today.

You would like to run MXoN at Perris, or Pax Track? Because those are equal to what they used to run MXoN on in 90is and it aint a positive thing. 

1990 Mx of nations had around 10k visitors. You have about 25-30k per day today. Its the same for selected races during the year, 15-20k i know since im visiting one and its within the community where i operate. So its not polished numbers by Infront.

Its selective memory everything was better before. 

At best you can aruge that some years or some things was better.

So I mentioned 80's and 90's GPs, and you went straight to the 2000's to say rider numbers were low, when this was actually when Luongo got involved and the current problems started...? You kind of backed up my point there..

The trucks etc aren't the spectators' fault. The push for "professionalism" was instigated by the current regime and look where that's got us. Teams were pushed to ditch the privateer look and be more like F1 and the like. All this was supposed to bring in big money and make the sport richer but all it did was cut the sport off at the knees and make certain people rich. Spectators don't give two shits about who's got the biggest rig.

"The 1990 MXDN had 10,000" visitors. Strange how you cherry-pick that race when the 1986 one had 30,000, 1988 had 40,000 and 1991 had 30,000 (to pick just three of many). All on old school tracks with "no infrastructure" 🙄 I was at the Foxhills 1998 MXDN and there was reportedly 50,000 people there and that place has one road in and out. Maybe it meant queuing to get out and the VIP tent wasn't as big but nobody there would have swapped it for what we have today.

7
rym
Posts
457
Joined
8/23/2023
Location
Milan, MI IT
7/15/2025 1:48am
Cortami79 wrote:
The problem is that riders with the calibre to ride themselves to a 15th-20th place (with the few rare occassions that we have a full starting...

The problem is that riders with the calibre to ride themselves to a 15th-20th place (with the few rare occassions that we have a full starting gate), don't get any money or recognisition. Cornelius Tondel had a 4th place finish last year at Agueda, and he didn't earn shit. So why bother to keep doing GPs? He now attends a few nationals (with a Swedish based team) and actually earned a bit of money doing so. 

In the ideal world, a privateer qualifying for a GP would mean him that he get's break-even on costs being made. Getting into the top 20 would mean that he earns a decent living.

I understand that factory teams go for big rigs and facilities, sure you want to make sure that your sponsors and brand are represented well. But there are instances where even MXGP limits their exposure due to parking restrictions. In Arnhem teams are only allowed to have an 'x' amount of trucks in the paddock. So it shows that it shouldn't be an excuse to host GPs at more decent tracks. The problem is that most tracks/clubs are not willing to go for that financial risk, unless the government steps in. I keep giving Arnhem as an example, as I'm Dutch. But the track owner of Arnhem is known for being wealthy (and crazy) enough to be willing to have that financial risk, and for the past two years it paid off. Maybe there are a few more clubs that have the financial buffer to go that far, but the list isn't too long.

The problem is, this situation is going on for about 20 years. Just look into the results page of MXGP. how many riders were allowed to qualify in 2004? 30? Back then you had 15 GPs, with 2 of them overseas. Now we have 20 GPs with 5 overseas  

I saw that point about Tondel making some money at the nationals a few times in some topics, so just asking that i understand this correct? Tondel is flying to the US with a mechanic, has to rent a car/van and sleep in hotels (or a rv), has to arrange bikes and parts in the us and he is making money on that trip?  

As for the rigs, Grau, Prugnieres and Walvoort do the full championship,  all had top 10 finishes in MX2 this season and their teams just showed up with easy-ups and a van in Italy. So its also where do you want to spend your money on

4
Snapper
Posts
1031
Joined
8/28/2009
Location
GB
7/15/2025 1:51am Edited Date/Time 7/15/2025 2:05am
aees wrote:
I can tell you never organized a national or bigger event.You have up to 40 riders in MXGP. 40 in Mx2. 50-60 in 125. 40 in...

I can tell you never organized a national or bigger event.

You have up to 40 riders in MXGP. 40 in Mx2. 50-60 in 125. 40 in Women. 50-60 in EMX 250. On a good day it's just 150 to deal with. On a bad day it's 250 with all classes.

It was over 180 in Finland so not sure of your mathskillss.

You need parking areas and ground conditions for a shit load of trucks plus easy access in and out for material. You need to be able to meet requirements for clearing the area in case of emergency for up to 20k visitors. Cities need to provide clearance and so does local police. Just the area for teams is huge when we are talking about 250 riders. A smaller event with good w ather you will get 20k visitors during weekend, 15k unique ones.

Around 10.000 hotel nights is required. The organizer shall be able to facili over 500 people to work during the event (we have had around 200-250 for national events).

Wash racks is needed. I can tell you that is not an easy thing for 300 riders. Ive done it for 200+ riders and we needed 40 wash racks built up with drainage. This needs to be close to pit area.

The city, or a private entity, needs to issue financial warranties towards the club because they don't have the means to take a hit if it rains and it generate a negative result.

How many do you think have the infrastructure to handle such an event? I can tell you it's not that many.

In Finland there were exactly 120 riders who started the weekend so I'm not sure of your maths skills... unless 60 riders had transponders that didn't work of course.

I stopped reading your other facts after reading that. 

2
1
7/15/2025 1:59am

There were several other motorsport events happening in the same area at the same time. Just 15 kilometers away, the Finnish Rally Championship was running from Friday to Saturday. There were also karting races taking place at a nearby track. All of these events were clearly competing for the same audience.

I was absolutely sure the track was going to be a complete disaster. While it wasn’t exactly good, it turned out to be better than I expected. Crushed sand had been added to the surface, and in some areas the base was still the original hard, rocky ground.

The worst part of the event was the overall atmosphere or lack of it. Spectators being kept behind wire fences definitely didn’t help the vibe. It was also obvious that the organizers had little to no experience with motocross events. Motocross is a completely different world compared to MotoGP or F1 and it just doesn’t work when you try to force it into the same mold.

6
DeStouwer
Posts
3457
Joined
2/17/2015
Location
BE
7/15/2025 2:18am
So I mentioned 80's and 90's GPs, and you went straight to the 2000's to say rider numbers were low, when this was actually when Luongo...

So I mentioned 80's and 90's GPs, and you went straight to the 2000's to say rider numbers were low, when this was actually when Luongo got involved and the current problems started...? You kind of backed up my point there..

The trucks etc aren't the spectators' fault. The push for "professionalism" was instigated by the current regime and look where that's got us. Teams were pushed to ditch the privateer look and be more like F1 and the like. All this was supposed to bring in big money and make the sport richer but all it did was cut the sport off at the knees and make certain people rich. Spectators don't give two shits about who's got the biggest rig.

"The 1990 MXDN had 10,000" visitors. Strange how you cherry-pick that race when the 1986 one had 30,000, 1988 had 40,000 and 1991 had 30,000 (to pick just three of many). All on old school tracks with "no infrastructure" 🙄 I was at the Foxhills 1998 MXDN and there was reportedly 50,000 people there and that place has one road in and out. Maybe it meant queuing to get out and the VIP tent wasn't as big but nobody there would have swapped it for what we have today.

Luongo was involved in the 90s aswell. MX Action Group, the organiser back then, was his. He sold the rights to Dorna Offroad in 2001-2003 (the years of single moto GP's), only to buy them back in 2004 under a new name, being YouthStream.

7/15/2025 2:28am
So I mentioned 80's and 90's GPs, and you went straight to the 2000's to say rider numbers were low, when this was actually when Luongo...

So I mentioned 80's and 90's GPs, and you went straight to the 2000's to say rider numbers were low, when this was actually when Luongo got involved and the current problems started...? You kind of backed up my point there..

The trucks etc aren't the spectators' fault. The push for "professionalism" was instigated by the current regime and look where that's got us. Teams were pushed to ditch the privateer look and be more like F1 and the like. All this was supposed to bring in big money and make the sport richer but all it did was cut the sport off at the knees and make certain people rich. Spectators don't give two shits about who's got the biggest rig.

"The 1990 MXDN had 10,000" visitors. Strange how you cherry-pick that race when the 1986 one had 30,000, 1988 had 40,000 and 1991 had 30,000 (to pick just three of many). All on old school tracks with "no infrastructure" 🙄 I was at the Foxhills 1998 MXDN and there was reportedly 50,000 people there and that place has one road in and out. Maybe it meant queuing to get out and the VIP tent wasn't as big but nobody there would have swapped it for what we have today.

DeStouwer wrote:
Luongo was involved in the 90s aswell. MX Action Group, the organiser back then, was his. He sold the rights to Dorna Offroad in 2001-2003 (the...

Luongo was involved in the 90s aswell. MX Action Group, the organiser back then, was his. He sold the rights to Dorna Offroad in 2001-2003 (the years of single moto GP's), only to buy them back in 2004 under a new name, being YouthStream.

well, if Luongo got involved in the 90's and by the early 2000's the rider numbers had dropped as the other guy said, my point still stands about where the rot started 😉

5
Twigster
Posts
447
Joined
8/29/2018
Location
GB
7/15/2025 3:08am
So I mentioned 80's and 90's GPs, and you went straight to the 2000's to say rider numbers were low, when this was actually when Luongo...

So I mentioned 80's and 90's GPs, and you went straight to the 2000's to say rider numbers were low, when this was actually when Luongo got involved and the current problems started...? You kind of backed up my point there..

The trucks etc aren't the spectators' fault. The push for "professionalism" was instigated by the current regime and look where that's got us. Teams were pushed to ditch the privateer look and be more like F1 and the like. All this was supposed to bring in big money and make the sport richer but all it did was cut the sport off at the knees and make certain people rich. Spectators don't give two shits about who's got the biggest rig.

"The 1990 MXDN had 10,000" visitors. Strange how you cherry-pick that race when the 1986 one had 30,000, 1988 had 40,000 and 1991 had 30,000 (to pick just three of many). All on old school tracks with "no infrastructure" 🙄 I was at the Foxhills 1998 MXDN and there was reportedly 50,000 people there and that place has one road in and out. Maybe it meant queuing to get out and the VIP tent wasn't as big but nobody there would have swapped it for what we have today.

DeStouwer wrote:
Luongo was involved in the 90s aswell. MX Action Group, the organiser back then, was his. He sold the rights to Dorna Offroad in 2001-2003 (the...

Luongo was involved in the 90s aswell. MX Action Group, the organiser back then, was his. He sold the rights to Dorna Offroad in 2001-2003 (the years of single moto GP's), only to buy them back in 2004 under a new name, being YouthStream.

Didn't know that, interesting. 

The comparison to F1 is valid though, if you look at what Dorna has done to MotoGP and also now to WSB you can see a very 'Bernie Ecclestone' approach to it all. There are a myriad of problems MXGP has - low viewership, low spectator numbers, shit tracks, poor prep, abysmal safety, expensive tickets, enormous costs for travel in trying to do the whole series... among others! -  All of which lay firmly and squarely at the same doors, namely the FIM and the Luongo's. They've all tried and failed to take a similar approach to F1, the only thing they've done well in that regard is making a massive amount of money for themselves in the process with 'a bit of a whiff' around how. 

9
7/15/2025 3:13am
So I mentioned 80's and 90's GPs, and you went straight to the 2000's to say rider numbers were low, when this was actually when Luongo...

So I mentioned 80's and 90's GPs, and you went straight to the 2000's to say rider numbers were low, when this was actually when Luongo got involved and the current problems started...? You kind of backed up my point there..

The trucks etc aren't the spectators' fault. The push for "professionalism" was instigated by the current regime and look where that's got us. Teams were pushed to ditch the privateer look and be more like F1 and the like. All this was supposed to bring in big money and make the sport richer but all it did was cut the sport off at the knees and make certain people rich. Spectators don't give two shits about who's got the biggest rig.

"The 1990 MXDN had 10,000" visitors. Strange how you cherry-pick that race when the 1986 one had 30,000, 1988 had 40,000 and 1991 had 30,000 (to pick just three of many). All on old school tracks with "no infrastructure" 🙄 I was at the Foxhills 1998 MXDN and there was reportedly 50,000 people there and that place has one road in and out. Maybe it meant queuing to get out and the VIP tent wasn't as big but nobody there would have swapped it for what we have today.

DeStouwer wrote:
Luongo was involved in the 90s aswell. MX Action Group, the organiser back then, was his. He sold the rights to Dorna Offroad in 2001-2003 (the...

Luongo was involved in the 90s aswell. MX Action Group, the organiser back then, was his. He sold the rights to Dorna Offroad in 2001-2003 (the years of single moto GP's), only to buy them back in 2004 under a new name, being YouthStream.

Twigster wrote:
Didn't know that, interesting. The comparison to F1 is valid though, if you look at what Dorna has done to MotoGP and also now to WSB you...

Didn't know that, interesting. 

The comparison to F1 is valid though, if you look at what Dorna has done to MotoGP and also now to WSB you can see a very 'Bernie Ecclestone' approach to it all. There are a myriad of problems MXGP has - low viewership, low spectator numbers, shit tracks, poor prep, abysmal safety, expensive tickets, enormous costs for travel in trying to do the whole series... among others! -  All of which lay firmly and squarely at the same doors, namely the FIM and the Luongo's. They've all tried and failed to take a similar approach to F1, the only thing they've done well in that regard is making a massive amount of money for themselves in the process with 'a bit of a whiff' around how. 

Very true. The problem with following the F1 model is that they extract huge amounts of money out of sponsors by treating them like Royalty at tracks such as Monaco where they can be entertained like Kings in opulent surroundings. That is never, ever going to happen in MX. They're chasing money from people who will never be interested in the sport. They should stop trying and go back to catering for the fans who love the sport come rain or shine.

The current MXGP scene with big trucks but unpaid riders is the epitome of "all fur coat but no knickers"

8
7/15/2025 3:19am
What got me into watching and following GP"s was the uniqueness of the tracks and the beauty of the surrounding areas. I always thought the Citadel...

What got me into watching and following GP"s was the uniqueness of the tracks and the beauty of the surrounding areas. I always thought the Citadel was cool as shit. To this day I'd love to ride it even though I know I can't. I'm slowly seeing that uniqueness disappear as is my interest in the series. When riders are on record saying they don't want to push it in some races because of where it is located for fear of getting hurt and getting horrendous health care, something is wrong. I still watch but it's getting to be meh for me.

I went to Namur 3 times and it was about as far away from "suitable" for a GP as you can get. And it was absolutely awesome.

8
Turre
Posts
24
Joined
6/17/2016
Location
FI
7/15/2025 3:20am Edited Date/Time 7/15/2025 3:21am
Falcon wrote:
16 active MX2 riders? What's to stop a guy like me from flying to Europe, renting a bike and taking 17th overall in my one and only...

16 active MX2 riders? 

What's to stop a guy like me from flying to Europe, renting a bike and taking 17th overall in my one and only GP race? 

I think to be eligible to buy yourself in requires scoring points or at least taking part in your top national series. Not certain tho, it came up when we were bantering about the same thing with the riding group. It's basically 'get yourself a story to tell' for a grand: "I've scored points in MXGP you know, used to race with Fevbre"

5
7/15/2025 3:26am

I was just recently watching the 1997 and 1998 mxgp years in recap on YouTube. I’m pretty sure loungo was involved then but he had only the rights to the 250cc championship and the 125 and 500 operated by someone else. Some of the races the crowds weren’t great but aside from maybe 1 or 2 questionable ones, the tracks were absolutely fantastic. Every single one was just unreal. I wished I had been 10 years older and could have gone over then. That was real motocross. But then he got greedy or stupid or both. Either way motocross in Europe and America is not the same. Whoever was doing Sebastian Tortelli’s suspension on his kawi those years was a god. Probably the best handling bike I’ve ever seen and everts bike as well  

1997 year in review 
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x85deOrbOHs&t=4677s&pp=ygUJMTk5NyBteGdw

7
7/15/2025 3:30am

A lot of you on here class MXGP as a European championship.

So if you add up EMX plus the MX2 class then you have more then 40 on the gate. Wink  

All about perspective people. 

1
aees
Posts
2689
Joined
8/20/2015
Location
US
7/15/2025 3:45am
aees wrote:
I can tell you never organized a national or bigger event.You have up to 40 riders in MXGP. 40 in Mx2. 50-60 in 125. 40 in...

I can tell you never organized a national or bigger event.

You have up to 40 riders in MXGP. 40 in Mx2. 50-60 in 125. 40 in Women. 50-60 in EMX 250. On a good day it's just 150 to deal with. On a bad day it's 250 with all classes.

It was over 180 in Finland so not sure of your mathskillss.

You need parking areas and ground conditions for a shit load of trucks plus easy access in and out for material. You need to be able to meet requirements for clearing the area in case of emergency for up to 20k visitors. Cities need to provide clearance and so does local police. Just the area for teams is huge when we are talking about 250 riders. A smaller event with good w ather you will get 20k visitors during weekend, 15k unique ones.

Around 10.000 hotel nights is required. The organizer shall be able to facili over 500 people to work during the event (we have had around 200-250 for national events).

Wash racks is needed. I can tell you that is not an easy thing for 300 riders. Ive done it for 200+ riders and we needed 40 wash racks built up with drainage. This needs to be close to pit area.

The city, or a private entity, needs to issue financial warranties towards the club because they don't have the means to take a hit if it rains and it generate a negative result.

How many do you think have the infrastructure to handle such an event? I can tell you it's not that many.

Snapper wrote:
In Finland there were exactly 120 riders who started the weekend so I'm not sure of your maths skills... unless 60 riders had transponders that didn't...

In Finland there were exactly 120 riders who started the weekend so I'm not sure of your maths skills... unless 60 riders had transponders that didn't work of course.

I stopped reading your other facts after reading that. 

Missed that women didnt run this weekend. 

7/15/2025 3:50am
A lot of you on here class MXGP as a European championship.So if you add up EMX plus the MX2 class then you have more then...

A lot of you on here class MXGP as a European championship.

So if you add up EMX plus the MX2 class then you have more then 40 on the gate. Wink  

All about perspective people. 

The assumption that 40 EMX riders would sign up for MX2 if the EMX250 class wouldn’t exist is based on absolutely nothing.

7
rym
Posts
457
Joined
8/23/2023
Location
Milan, MI IT
7/15/2025 3:50am
A lot of you on here class MXGP as a European championship.So if you add up EMX plus the MX2 class then you have more then...

A lot of you on here class MXGP as a European championship.

So if you add up EMX plus the MX2 class then you have more then 40 on the gate. Wink  

All about perspective people. 

Infront should give it a long look how to get those strong teams in EMX250 to drop emx and do the same calendar but in MX2. 

If the majority of Bud Racing, VHR Yamaha, Fantic, RFME Junior, Dixon, CAT Moto, Kosak, AIT, Dirt Store, Gabriel SS, JM Honda and Ghidinelli would race in MX2 we'd have 40 riders in MX2 at most european GPs, and a lot of these riders would be beating Magnus Smith who is now 20th in MX2 points.

To be honest i have no idea how to make those teams move up though.

2
rym
Posts
457
Joined
8/23/2023
Location
Milan, MI IT
7/15/2025 3:51am
Rocketship wrote:

The assumption that 40 EMX riders would sign up for MX2 if the EMX250 class wouldn’t exist is based on absolutely nothing.

yeah that is the big question, how to get those guys to race in mx2

aees
Posts
2689
Joined
8/20/2015
Location
US
7/15/2025 3:56am
...and I can tell you never went to a GP in the 80's or 90's...You could have anything up to 150 riders trying to qualify for...

...and I can tell you never went to a GP in the 80's or 90's...

You could have anything up to 150 riders trying to qualify for one class along with support races, non qualifier races etc, and that's before they started combining classes meaning multiple groups for qualifying. Don't even get me started on crowd numbers compared to today.

"You need parking areas for a shit load of trucks" - and there's issue number 1; the track takes second place to the car park because of all the huge rigs. They find a car park first then try to crowbar a track around it. How many classic tracks have been binned to be replaced by faceless flat areas with sand trucked in.?

Everything else you mention is stuff that's been made "neccessary" at the expense of decent tracks. It's no good having awesome background facilities if there's no room left for a decent track. It's the tail wagging the dog. By all means keep going down a corporate dead-end trying to make the sport "professional" but how's that working out.? Empty start gates, no spectators, and people switching off the TV. They don't tune in to compare race trucks and facilities..

aees wrote:
I can tell you that 20 years ago early 2000 there was around 75-80 riders in total in 3 classes (30+27+19).  There was 32 in MX2...

I can tell you that 20 years ago early 2000 there was around 75-80 riders in total in 3 classes (30+27+19).  There was 32 in MX2 so two extra was there that didnt qualify. Data is there, took the time to look over it.
 
Not sure what you are going at, but its not the promotors fault that campers, riders and factory teams have gone to bigger rigs, is it? So blame yourself and the people around you for there being a need for certain infrastructure today.

You would like to run MXoN at Perris, or Pax Track? Because those are equal to what they used to run MXoN on in 90is and it aint a positive thing. 

1990 Mx of nations had around 10k visitors. You have about 25-30k per day today. Its the same for selected races during the year, 15-20k i know since im visiting one and its within the community where i operate. So its not polished numbers by Infront.

Its selective memory everything was better before. 

At best you can aruge that some years or some things was better.

So I mentioned 80's and 90's GPs, and you went straight to the 2000's to say rider numbers were low, when this was actually when Luongo...

So I mentioned 80's and 90's GPs, and you went straight to the 2000's to say rider numbers were low, when this was actually when Luongo got involved and the current problems started...? You kind of backed up my point there..

The trucks etc aren't the spectators' fault. The push for "professionalism" was instigated by the current regime and look where that's got us. Teams were pushed to ditch the privateer look and be more like F1 and the like. All this was supposed to bring in big money and make the sport richer but all it did was cut the sport off at the knees and make certain people rich. Spectators don't give two shits about who's got the biggest rig.

"The 1990 MXDN had 10,000" visitors. Strange how you cherry-pick that race when the 1986 one had 30,000, 1988 had 40,000 and 1991 had 30,000 (to pick just three of many). All on old school tracks with "no infrastructure" 🙄 I was at the Foxhills 1998 MXDN and there was reportedly 50,000 people there and that place has one road in and out. Maybe it meant queuing to get out and the VIP tent wasn't as big but nobody there would have swapped it for what we have today.

Because that's where you have statistics from. Because in1990 is was run at a small track in Sweden that wouldn't have s chance of running a GP today. You have more visitors today at Swedish GP than the MXoN at that time. 

And sorry but things evolve, there is very few coming to the track today ä with car and trailer as it used to be. Everyone have a van, truck or a 30 foot Caravan.

That has shit to do with Infront. Its Just how things evolve. 

And it doesn't matter that there was 20 or 40 more riders because the field was the same shit. 5 Great riders, 10 good, 5 ok and the rest was gate fillers getting lapped just as today.

No one I know wants to go back to a shitty local race level for world championships. That's just mentality of people that doesn't like things to evolve.

5
aees
Posts
2689
Joined
8/20/2015
Location
US
7/15/2025 4:05am Edited Date/Time 7/15/2025 4:08am
...and I can tell you never went to a GP in the 80's or 90's...You could have anything up to 150 riders trying to qualify for...

...and I can tell you never went to a GP in the 80's or 90's...

You could have anything up to 150 riders trying to qualify for one class along with support races, non qualifier races etc, and that's before they started combining classes meaning multiple groups for qualifying. Don't even get me started on crowd numbers compared to today.

"You need parking areas for a shit load of trucks" - and there's issue number 1; the track takes second place to the car park because of all the huge rigs. They find a car park first then try to crowbar a track around it. How many classic tracks have been binned to be replaced by faceless flat areas with sand trucked in.?

Everything else you mention is stuff that's been made "neccessary" at the expense of decent tracks. It's no good having awesome background facilities if there's no room left for a decent track. It's the tail wagging the dog. By all means keep going down a corporate dead-end trying to make the sport "professional" but how's that working out.? Empty start gates, no spectators, and people switching off the TV. They don't tune in to compare race trucks and facilities..

aees wrote:
I can tell you that 20 years ago early 2000 there was around 75-80 riders in total in 3 classes (30+27+19).  There was 32 in MX2...

I can tell you that 20 years ago early 2000 there was around 75-80 riders in total in 3 classes (30+27+19).  There was 32 in MX2 so two extra was there that didnt qualify. Data is there, took the time to look over it.
 
Not sure what you are going at, but its not the promotors fault that campers, riders and factory teams have gone to bigger rigs, is it? So blame yourself and the people around you for there being a need for certain infrastructure today.

You would like to run MXoN at Perris, or Pax Track? Because those are equal to what they used to run MXoN on in 90is and it aint a positive thing. 

1990 Mx of nations had around 10k visitors. You have about 25-30k per day today. Its the same for selected races during the year, 15-20k i know since im visiting one and its within the community where i operate. So its not polished numbers by Infront.

Its selective memory everything was better before. 

At best you can aruge that some years or some things was better.

So I mentioned 80's and 90's GPs, and you went straight to the 2000's to say rider numbers were low, when this was actually when Luongo...

So I mentioned 80's and 90's GPs, and you went straight to the 2000's to say rider numbers were low, when this was actually when Luongo got involved and the current problems started...? You kind of backed up my point there..

The trucks etc aren't the spectators' fault. The push for "professionalism" was instigated by the current regime and look where that's got us. Teams were pushed to ditch the privateer look and be more like F1 and the like. All this was supposed to bring in big money and make the sport richer but all it did was cut the sport off at the knees and make certain people rich. Spectators don't give two shits about who's got the biggest rig.

"The 1990 MXDN had 10,000" visitors. Strange how you cherry-pick that race when the 1986 one had 30,000, 1988 had 40,000 and 1991 had 30,000 (to pick just three of many). All on old school tracks with "no infrastructure" 🙄 I was at the Foxhills 1998 MXDN and there was reportedly 50,000 people there and that place has one road in and out. Maybe it meant queuing to get out and the VIP tent wasn't as big but nobody there would have swapped it for what we have today.

And regarding the money you are just wrong. There are multi time world champions that could barerly afford to retire from their time after racing despite being careful with money. I know some from 90s that are still having to work (Enduro). Zero chance that happens today.

Today you don't even have to be a champion to retire and have a great life.

The amount of money available reaches further into the results lists than it ever did, due to more sponsors and better marketing.

2
7/15/2025 5:34am
aees wrote:
I can tell you that 20 years ago early 2000 there was around 75-80 riders in total in 3 classes (30+27+19).  There was 32 in MX2...

I can tell you that 20 years ago early 2000 there was around 75-80 riders in total in 3 classes (30+27+19).  There was 32 in MX2 so two extra was there that didnt qualify. Data is there, took the time to look over it.
 
Not sure what you are going at, but its not the promotors fault that campers, riders and factory teams have gone to bigger rigs, is it? So blame yourself and the people around you for there being a need for certain infrastructure today.

You would like to run MXoN at Perris, or Pax Track? Because those are equal to what they used to run MXoN on in 90is and it aint a positive thing. 

1990 Mx of nations had around 10k visitors. You have about 25-30k per day today. Its the same for selected races during the year, 15-20k i know since im visiting one and its within the community where i operate. So its not polished numbers by Infront.

Its selective memory everything was better before. 

At best you can aruge that some years or some things was better.

So I mentioned 80's and 90's GPs, and you went straight to the 2000's to say rider numbers were low, when this was actually when Luongo...

So I mentioned 80's and 90's GPs, and you went straight to the 2000's to say rider numbers were low, when this was actually when Luongo got involved and the current problems started...? You kind of backed up my point there..

The trucks etc aren't the spectators' fault. The push for "professionalism" was instigated by the current regime and look where that's got us. Teams were pushed to ditch the privateer look and be more like F1 and the like. All this was supposed to bring in big money and make the sport richer but all it did was cut the sport off at the knees and make certain people rich. Spectators don't give two shits about who's got the biggest rig.

"The 1990 MXDN had 10,000" visitors. Strange how you cherry-pick that race when the 1986 one had 30,000, 1988 had 40,000 and 1991 had 30,000 (to pick just three of many). All on old school tracks with "no infrastructure" 🙄 I was at the Foxhills 1998 MXDN and there was reportedly 50,000 people there and that place has one road in and out. Maybe it meant queuing to get out and the VIP tent wasn't as big but nobody there would have swapped it for what we have today.

aees wrote:
Because that's where you have statistics from. Because in1990 is was run at a small track in Sweden that wouldn't have s chance of running a...

Because that's where you have statistics from. Because in1990 is was run at a small track in Sweden that wouldn't have s chance of running a GP today. You have more visitors today at Swedish GP than the MXoN at that time. 

And sorry but things evolve, there is very few coming to the track today ä with car and trailer as it used to be. Everyone have a van, truck or a 30 foot Caravan.

That has shit to do with Infront. Its Just how things evolve. 

And it doesn't matter that there was 20 or 40 more riders because the field was the same shit. 5 Great riders, 10 good, 5 ok and the rest was gate fillers getting lapped just as today.

No one I know wants to go back to a shitty local race level for world championships. That's just mentality of people that doesn't like things to evolve.

"muh...statistics!" What, like the ones I mentioned that you're conveniently avoiding.? Oh and if that one race had a small crowd because the track was "shitty" what's the reason for small crowds now that everything is so wonderful.?

And what's the "shitty local race level" tracks you're talking about? Which track from the past has stopped being used because of the track itself and not the car park, facilities etc.? You're wrong; people want rid of new shitty tracks created just for the car park, not the old tracks themselves.

7/15/2025 5:42am
aees wrote:
And regarding the money you are just wrong. There are multi time world champions that could barerly afford to retire from their time after racing despite...

And regarding the money you are just wrong. There are multi time world champions that could barerly afford to retire from their time after racing despite being careful with money. I know some from 90s that are still having to work (Enduro). Zero chance that happens today.

Today you don't even have to be a champion to retire and have a great life.

The amount of money available reaches further into the results lists than it ever did, due to more sponsors and better marketing.

My god you're just trolling now. The absolute biggest problem in MXGP is that there is no money, and what there is only goes to the top few guys then runs out fast. It's why so many good riders are sticking to National series or going to the AMA.

Maybe the top half dozen in MXGP are making good money but that was the case 40 years ago - and the privateers had enough in prize money and start money to be able to pay for their race expenses on that alone in a lot of cases. Everybody on the 40-rider (remember those..?) start line got paid something out of the race purse when they lined up. NOBODY does now.

Go and google the likes of Malherbe etc with their Ferrraris and Monaco apartments...

7
aees
Posts
2689
Joined
8/20/2015
Location
US
7/15/2025 5:47am
So I mentioned 80's and 90's GPs, and you went straight to the 2000's to say rider numbers were low, when this was actually when Luongo...

So I mentioned 80's and 90's GPs, and you went straight to the 2000's to say rider numbers were low, when this was actually when Luongo got involved and the current problems started...? You kind of backed up my point there..

The trucks etc aren't the spectators' fault. The push for "professionalism" was instigated by the current regime and look where that's got us. Teams were pushed to ditch the privateer look and be more like F1 and the like. All this was supposed to bring in big money and make the sport richer but all it did was cut the sport off at the knees and make certain people rich. Spectators don't give two shits about who's got the biggest rig.

"The 1990 MXDN had 10,000" visitors. Strange how you cherry-pick that race when the 1986 one had 30,000, 1988 had 40,000 and 1991 had 30,000 (to pick just three of many). All on old school tracks with "no infrastructure" 🙄 I was at the Foxhills 1998 MXDN and there was reportedly 50,000 people there and that place has one road in and out. Maybe it meant queuing to get out and the VIP tent wasn't as big but nobody there would have swapped it for what we have today.

aees wrote:
Because that's where you have statistics from. Because in1990 is was run at a small track in Sweden that wouldn't have s chance of running a...

Because that's where you have statistics from. Because in1990 is was run at a small track in Sweden that wouldn't have s chance of running a GP today. You have more visitors today at Swedish GP than the MXoN at that time. 

And sorry but things evolve, there is very few coming to the track today ä with car and trailer as it used to be. Everyone have a van, truck or a 30 foot Caravan.

That has shit to do with Infront. Its Just how things evolve. 

And it doesn't matter that there was 20 or 40 more riders because the field was the same shit. 5 Great riders, 10 good, 5 ok and the rest was gate fillers getting lapped just as today.

No one I know wants to go back to a shitty local race level for world championships. That's just mentality of people that doesn't like things to evolve.

"muh...statistics!" What, like the ones I mentioned that you're conveniently avoiding.? Oh and if that one race had a small crowd because the track was "shitty"...

"muh...statistics!" What, like the ones I mentioned that you're conveniently avoiding.? Oh and if that one race had a small crowd because the track was "shitty" what's the reason for small crowds now that everything is so wonderful.?

And what's the "shitty local race level" tracks you're talking about? Which track from the past has stopped being used because of the track itself and not the car park, facilities etc.? You're wrong; people want rid of new shitty tracks created just for the car park, not the old tracks themselves.

You forgot what the original point was? 

Infrastructure. Read my first post again. It's not about the fucking track itself.

What was approved 30 or 40 years ago will not necessarily get approved today. Neither by local authorities, sports commissions, promotors, audience or riders.

Some people are stuck in history. Everything evolve.

Your car from 1980, 90 or 00 would never make it to the market. Neither the housings. 

Neither all tracks (arenas) for championship races. What's so hard to understand. You want to go back 40 years so move into the woods, drop your internet subscription, stop posting on a forum. You don't get to cherry pick evolution. 

6
7/15/2025 5:55am
aees wrote:
Because that's where you have statistics from. Because in1990 is was run at a small track in Sweden that wouldn't have s chance of running a...

Because that's where you have statistics from. Because in1990 is was run at a small track in Sweden that wouldn't have s chance of running a GP today. You have more visitors today at Swedish GP than the MXoN at that time. 

And sorry but things evolve, there is very few coming to the track today ä with car and trailer as it used to be. Everyone have a van, truck or a 30 foot Caravan.

That has shit to do with Infront. Its Just how things evolve. 

And it doesn't matter that there was 20 or 40 more riders because the field was the same shit. 5 Great riders, 10 good, 5 ok and the rest was gate fillers getting lapped just as today.

No one I know wants to go back to a shitty local race level for world championships. That's just mentality of people that doesn't like things to evolve.

"muh...statistics!" What, like the ones I mentioned that you're conveniently avoiding.? Oh and if that one race had a small crowd because the track was "shitty"...

"muh...statistics!" What, like the ones I mentioned that you're conveniently avoiding.? Oh and if that one race had a small crowd because the track was "shitty" what's the reason for small crowds now that everything is so wonderful.?

And what's the "shitty local race level" tracks you're talking about? Which track from the past has stopped being used because of the track itself and not the car park, facilities etc.? You're wrong; people want rid of new shitty tracks created just for the car park, not the old tracks themselves.

aees wrote:
You forgot what the original point was? Infrastructure. Read my first post again. It's not about the fucking track itself.What was approved 30 or 40 years ago...

You forgot what the original point was? 

Infrastructure. Read my first post again. It's not about the fucking track itself.

What was approved 30 or 40 years ago will not necessarily get approved today. Neither by local authorities, sports commissions, promotors, audience or riders.

Some people are stuck in history. Everything evolve.

Your car from 1980, 90 or 00 would never make it to the market. Neither the housings. 

Neither all tracks (arenas) for championship races. What's so hard to understand. You want to go back 40 years so move into the woods, drop your internet subscription, stop posting on a forum. You don't get to cherry pick evolution. 

Jeeeez...and you're missing the whole point I was making after your post - that the tracks are being designed/compromised around so called infrastructure. A shit-ton of unneccessary bollocks has been introduced to a sport that doesn't need it & can't afford it, then the baby got thrown out with the bathwater to accommodate it.

A car park is found, then the facilities etc etc, then somewhere down the line they try to wind a track around it with a few lorryloads of sand. We end up with the same flat boring track as the week before, and the week before.

The corporate tail is wagging the racing dog and nobody is buying it; either the riders or the fans. What part can't you understand.?

6
aees
Posts
2689
Joined
8/20/2015
Location
US
7/15/2025 6:16am
"muh...statistics!" What, like the ones I mentioned that you're conveniently avoiding.? Oh and if that one race had a small crowd because the track was "shitty"...

"muh...statistics!" What, like the ones I mentioned that you're conveniently avoiding.? Oh and if that one race had a small crowd because the track was "shitty" what's the reason for small crowds now that everything is so wonderful.?

And what's the "shitty local race level" tracks you're talking about? Which track from the past has stopped being used because of the track itself and not the car park, facilities etc.? You're wrong; people want rid of new shitty tracks created just for the car park, not the old tracks themselves.

aees wrote:
You forgot what the original point was? Infrastructure. Read my first post again. It's not about the fucking track itself.What was approved 30 or 40 years ago...

You forgot what the original point was? 

Infrastructure. Read my first post again. It's not about the fucking track itself.

What was approved 30 or 40 years ago will not necessarily get approved today. Neither by local authorities, sports commissions, promotors, audience or riders.

Some people are stuck in history. Everything evolve.

Your car from 1980, 90 or 00 would never make it to the market. Neither the housings. 

Neither all tracks (arenas) for championship races. What's so hard to understand. You want to go back 40 years so move into the woods, drop your internet subscription, stop posting on a forum. You don't get to cherry pick evolution. 

Jeeeez...and you're missing the whole point I was making after your post - that the tracks are being designed/compromised around so called infrastructure. A shit-ton of...

Jeeeez...and you're missing the whole point I was making after your post - that the tracks are being designed/compromised around so called infrastructure. A shit-ton of unneccessary bollocks has been introduced to a sport that doesn't need it & can't afford it, then the baby got thrown out with the bathwater to accommodate it.

A car park is found, then the facilities etc etc, then somewhere down the line they try to wind a track around it with a few lorryloads of sand. We end up with the same flat boring track as the week before, and the week before.

The corporate tail is wagging the racing dog and nobody is buying it; either the riders or the fans. What part can't you understand.?

So you are saying its the promotors that have caused every motorcycle brand on national series to show up in a 18 wheeler with AC or heating, showers and a large tent for the riders and mechanics to work from. In addition the riders have thier own 30 foot trucks or trailers to sleep in. You have 10 people in the team instead of maybe one mechanic. Promotors fault?

Compared to 1980? Its not mandatory I can tell you that. Even the 20 place guys show up in trailers buying larger spaces in the pits. I can tell you the complaints coming in if you can't supply electricity to the b-riders today. You know the ones that arrived with the bike on a stand on the tow bar in 80s.

It's evolution, requirement increase. You would never buy a car today without AC or electric windows would you. And you wouldn't get the same car approved for the market. Because what? Yes everything evolves. Regulations, rider and audience requirements, team requirements, sponsor requirements.

You are trying to find a single point of failure in this, and there isn't. 

3
7/15/2025 6:37am Edited Date/Time 7/15/2025 6:38am
aees wrote:
You forgot what the original point was? Infrastructure. Read my first post again. It's not about the fucking track itself.What was approved 30 or 40 years ago...

You forgot what the original point was? 

Infrastructure. Read my first post again. It's not about the fucking track itself.

What was approved 30 or 40 years ago will not necessarily get approved today. Neither by local authorities, sports commissions, promotors, audience or riders.

Some people are stuck in history. Everything evolve.

Your car from 1980, 90 or 00 would never make it to the market. Neither the housings. 

Neither all tracks (arenas) for championship races. What's so hard to understand. You want to go back 40 years so move into the woods, drop your internet subscription, stop posting on a forum. You don't get to cherry pick evolution. 

Jeeeez...and you're missing the whole point I was making after your post - that the tracks are being designed/compromised around so called infrastructure. A shit-ton of...

Jeeeez...and you're missing the whole point I was making after your post - that the tracks are being designed/compromised around so called infrastructure. A shit-ton of unneccessary bollocks has been introduced to a sport that doesn't need it & can't afford it, then the baby got thrown out with the bathwater to accommodate it.

A car park is found, then the facilities etc etc, then somewhere down the line they try to wind a track around it with a few lorryloads of sand. We end up with the same flat boring track as the week before, and the week before.

The corporate tail is wagging the racing dog and nobody is buying it; either the riders or the fans. What part can't you understand.?

aees wrote:
So you are saying its the promotors that have caused every motorcycle brand on national series to show up in a 18 wheeler with AC or...

So you are saying its the promotors that have caused every motorcycle brand on national series to show up in a 18 wheeler with AC or heating, showers and a large tent for the riders and mechanics to work from. In addition the riders have thier own 30 foot trucks or trailers to sleep in. You have 10 people in the team instead of maybe one mechanic. Promotors fault?

Compared to 1980? Its not mandatory I can tell you that. Even the 20 place guys show up in trailers buying larger spaces in the pits. I can tell you the complaints coming in if you can't supply electricity to the b-riders today. You know the ones that arrived with the bike on a stand on the tow bar in 80s.

It's evolution, requirement increase. You would never buy a car today without AC or electric windows would you. And you wouldn't get the same car approved for the market. Because what? Yes everything evolves. Regulations, rider and audience requirements, team requirements, sponsor requirements.

You are trying to find a single point of failure in this, and there isn't. 

*bangs head in frustration... 😣

But it's the push towards things like 18-wheelers and so on that have led the sport down a dead end. It's an off-road sport in off-road locations - trying to shoehorn an F1 pit into a field isn't going to leave options for a track. You immediately cut out elevation, hills, and anything else that makes a track. If there was a World Dick-Waving champs then all this show would be great, but there isn't so it's all pointless. Just because the sport has gone down the big-shiny-pit route doesn't make it right.

Quote: "you are trying to find a point of failure in this and there isn't" Really? Oh... apart from empty start gates, no money for riders, declining crowds, riders leaving the series and crappy tracks with often poor racing. Have I missed anything else.?

Question for you; do you think GP tracks have improved over the past 30 years? Yes or No? And I'm not talking about electric hook ups or hard standing for trucks. Have the tracks themselves got better or worse.?

3
7/15/2025 6:48am
rym wrote:
Infront should give it a long look how to get those strong teams in EMX250 to drop emx and do the same calendar but in MX2. If...

Infront should give it a long look how to get those strong teams in EMX250 to drop emx and do the same calendar but in MX2. 

If the majority of Bud Racing, VHR Yamaha, Fantic, RFME Junior, Dixon, CAT Moto, Kosak, AIT, Dirt Store, Gabriel SS, JM Honda and Ghidinelli would race in MX2 we'd have 40 riders in MX2 at most european GPs, and a lot of these riders would be beating Magnus Smith who is now 20th in MX2 points.

To be honest i have no idea how to make those teams move up though.

It’ll be down to the team sponsorship deals.

Sponsors could pay more for World Series or less for a euro, seems the latter is the more popular choice away from full factory support.

 

Post a reply to: MXGP Finland - WTF - I Don’t Know Man…

The Latest