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.
Didnt you read my post? AMA is already there.
Infrastructure/capability already dictate what tracks you run on. It's been like that for a long time.
Why do you think the same 15 tracks are the only ones of 1000 they run races on? Because 98% can't handle a national.
no idea what u fellas are talking about, just wanted to give a shout out to this year's finnish rally championship with Lappi, Tuuka, Teemu and Niclas Gronholm! It have been rad to follow. Plus Brandon Semenuk last round? ohhh, classy
I was bummed this year when Patagonia went away and they replaced it with that new track. That track was a bucket list race for me and I’m mad I didn’t make it happen. It seems like every couple years there is more and more parking lot rounds. It really makes me appreciate the fact we have kept most of our main national tracks around in America.
It sucks that they dont race there anymore since it was such a great track, but afaik the track has been demolished for a housing project or something like that
The Shop
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
So you've spent the whole thread completely avoiding the point about the decline of GP's by constantly banging on about what happens in your bubble. Then you admitted you don't go to races, and now you're saying 30,000 fans making the effort to travel from all over the world to the MXON don't have a clue who they're watching..? Let me guess; you don't go to any MXON's either but you have all the answers to that too.?
Wow...
What decline? The numbers are he same since 20 years back 😂 Where have I avoid that, please point to where I have not answered why they go to tracks like Finland.
And you are making up stuff, where have I said I don't go to races?
You are out of a ammunition since I gave you the facts that US is already selecting tracks based on infrastructure before track design which was the only point this thread was started about. So please explain how that is different and stick to the main topic instead of chasing wording.
I'll leave it here, you got clear numbers and logic in my answer, it's like the orange clown being all over the place ignoring facts.
Semenuk surprised me, that was impressive. Hope he could find a way to do some WRC2 rounds.
Quote: "where did I say I don't go to races?"
Errr... here, quote: "I rarely go to nationals because you typically don't see the whole track, it's warm moving around, limited food and drink capability, parking is a nightmare. TV provides a better overall continues experience if it is watching racing you are after" Oops...
Quote: "the numbers are the same since 20 years back!"
1) false. There wasn't half-empty grids 20 years ago and crowds were bigger; most GP's still needed qualifiers to whittle them down. I went to the 2004 British GP at the Isle of Wight and the best racing that weekend was the Saturday qualifiers watching hungry local privateers bang heads with the GP regulars trying to get in the main races. 2) 20 years back deliberately avoids the timeframe I originally referred to, when crowds and grids were at their peak. Funny that, hey.?
Quote: "You are out of a ammunition since I gave you the facts that US is already selecting tracks based on infrastructure".
1) the discussion is about GPs but you keep avoiding that. 2) The AMA is picking tracks based on infrastructure already there or can be installed at an existing track. The GPs are picking infrastructure with no track, then trying to build a track on it. HUGE difference that you seem to be struggling with.
Have another try 🤡
What are you talking about? All AMA national tracks have really good layouts and full gates of riders in both classes. You can't say the same about MXGP these days.
Big rigs in the paddock and asphalted parking areas don't mean nothing if the racing itself is boring due to poor track layout and lack of riders. The fans don't come to races because facilities outside the track are awesome. They come see the race. The lack of spectators in Finnish MXGP is a good proof of that. The brand new facilities around the Kymiring are top notch but the amount of spectators was still quite low.
It's a fact that hilly terrain provides much better view for the spectators and actually allows you to follow the race and those kind of tracks tends to pull the biggest crowds
So now I understand why you keep on going. I'm not going to insult you but comprehending What's written doesn't seem to be your strong side so I'll lay it out:
If I don't go, It means zero. I don't go you say. I say I did RARERLY go. And going 2-4 times a year is rarely given how many races there are.
1. No! I have given you numbers from over 20 years ago. It's the same! You are making things up. It wasnt even full 30 gates at that time. Of course it varies, and you can marginally say it better or worse.
2. 20 years ago is where there are numbers from. Why not go back to 50s and 60s and say numbers are higher now?
3. What am I avoiding?! You are comparing to nationals saying they do better because they don't go to places depending on infrastructure, which is the number on criteria when they select tracks?! 😂
4. I have given you exactly the reason why but I will again say the same thing wasting my time:
The amount of tracks suitable per country is maybe 1-2 in a country with 1/5 to 1/10 of the population of US. Russia or China has 1-2 despite being huge countries. On top of that you need a local organiser that can bring on hundreds of staff, not be asholes (Glen Helen) and have the support of cities or sports commissions to get all approvals in place. You end up with zero to none viable options. Italy has more, France also. Going to Maggiora a historical track there isn't one rider that likes that track if they can chose something else.
You seem to think there is just pick a track and let's arrange a race at it. If you have arranged racing series and nationals, the fucking track design is the last major thing any serious organizer need to look at otherwise you would have had nationals rotating at 50 different tracks per year is US. What's so fucking hard to understand?
Just answer why there was only 5 candidates for MxON in US and ~15 tracks rotating if it would be so easy for MXGP to go to whatever existing tracks to avoid man-made tracks. Nationals should be running at 50 tracks.
Then we can close this discussion.
The absolutely only time you can say it's more than 15 on the gate, is the first 30sec of a race. Sure it's nice to see, but for racing it doesn't do shit. You follow the lead pack and when that is done you move to next group at no time you end up studying the 30th place guy and his progress unless its a factory rider that went down.
There is absolutely a 50/50 splitt between boring races to watch between the series. Jmart added to last weekends race but before that and in 450 watching Jett passing 10 riders was all there was to it.
Have you watched all the MXGP say and sun rounds? Do you have a subscription? Because I havewatched them all.
MXGP race was exactly the same, some battles, one checks out. In MX2 you have 5 winners so far, and there is no predicting who is going to win. You have 3 in US and Deegan if healthy is a 95% lock. Same with Jett. So where is the exciting racing depending on the track layout exactly? There is no telling what track will have good racing beforehand, its circumstatial always. If Jetts and Deegan holeshot and stay up you have nothing which has even the case for most of the races so far. Why do you think Osborne picks Deegs and Jett every weekend? Because tracks suit them?
Good racing has less to do with track layout. Track prepp is the important thin. Unless you missed that completely that is also the feedback from riders as you could hear again this weekend.
I quit watching GP racing about ten years ago because I felt I have better things to do with my spare time. These days I only watch the race highlights from the GP's. The last GP I attended as a spectator was at Hyvinkää 2014 I think.
I still watch the full AMA races because the tracks are better and there are much more interesting rider personalities. Also the race broadcasts are made a lot better.
The amount of bike has crucial effect on how rough the track turns out. It's much more fun to see professionals navigating rough tracks. Watching skillful riders navigating rough challenging track is half of the joy.
It's also more fun watch live when there's constantly bikes passing you and you see the difference in the skill level between first and the 40th place.
If would choose what I wach purely how close the racing is then I would be watching speedway racing on flat oval...
Jesus, so you don't know what you are talking about basically?!
GP tracks gets equally or way rougher. Just watch race from Finland and compare to anything US races on.
There is more track time put on GP tracks than AMA tracks because all the other classes and two day formats so that argument is just not true even if they sometimes prepp the tracks.
You have up to 8 races on main race days compared to 4 i US and you have more practise time plus saturday race. Practise everyone runs the fast line pretty much so that doesn't matter if you have 100 or 150 riders going 3 fast laps compared to twice as many heat races where everyone goes full speed. Fly away races less riders but again more race time on the tracks so in the end no difference.
(Did hit enter before I was finished so edited)
Jeez it's like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling, so I'll try again but slowwerrrr this time..
1) the numbers weren't the same 20 years ago. They still had qualifying to pick the riders for the main races. When's the last time that happened recently.? Now do the 80's and 90's like I asked (several times).
2) wtf are you talking about.? I mentioned the peak 80's and 90's and after avoiding that and talking about more recently, you're now going to the 50's & 60's..? Oh, they had big grids and crowds there too btw which means the GP scene was healthier for longer than I said, so your point is.?
3) No; I said the Nationals go to existing tracks that have improved their infrastructure but the GP's are going to new places with no track but good infrastructure. Thus they have trouble building a good track because infrastructure generally doesn't get built in good places for a track. I thought I had made that pretty simple in the last post but obviously not..
4) tracks are hard to find as you say, so why choose infrastructure over the track, thereby limiting the track choice even further.? Scratching off all the tracks that make good racing, then starting with a clean slate trying to find infrastructure + a track is doing it backwards. You keep banging on about "infrastructure" but that's the problem - a "need" has been introduced that makes suitable GP tracks almost impossible. And I'm talking about TRACKS; y'know - the thing the bikes race around....?
And you keep saying the same thing about races "only having a few places they can go" - EXACTLY! And why is that...? Anything to do with going down a dead end chasing "infrastructure"..? Tracks in the past handled bigger crowds but can't now.... oooh I wonder why?
Finally, your comment of "the fucking track design is the last major thing any serious organizer need to look at" sums up everything that has gone wrong with GP's....
The last GP race I attended they groomed the track even between the heats and on fly away races there are usually no other classes than the MX2 and MXGP.
You are gripping straws here. I still occasionally watch GP race here and there but nothing has changed better in my opinion.
I get it you are big fan of the MXGP's and that's fine but I think on the larger scale the Nationals have much larger foll wing in these days. Even my riding buddies are following Nationals these days and not much MXGP
1. Are you immune to facts? There is numbers available. There was 32 MX2 riders, 27 MX1 and 19 MX3 over 23 years go in early season races. I took early season race because everybody still healthy and central ones. You are like Trump making up your own facts.
2. Thats the point. If you go back enough it will go in the other direction if you don't adjust for economics. The healthiest time from a financial standpoint with money in he sport was pre 2008 when US housing market tanked the economy. No one can argue there was more money in the sport adjusted for inflation). And the entry numbers in major events hasn't changed dramatically in any dorection. In fact it has increased with more classes added if anything.
3 and 4. I guess you dont follow industry discussions also. If you would have, you would have heard DC and others explain the requirements for infrastructure/capability when deciding which tracks to go to. Its the number one thing they look at. Its already being used as the number one filter in nationals and you end up with 15 of 1000 tracks!
Add a global championship that supposed to go to new markets. How can you sit and complain about MXGP when the biggest MX market in the world stick to the same 15 tracks every year? How is that so hard to understand?
Previous Argentina track was ranked the best track on the circuit also by riders Guess what, newly built! From a racing standpoint there is zero difference between lommel as probably the most current iconic sand track in the world. Guess what, you wouldnt be a le to tell the difference if I asked you do pick it out from a GoPro on a rider. Both are flat and exactly similar style.
It's the same as anywhere, they fix jump faces and if riders complain the fix what is needed. Sand tracks they typically leave all sections in track. Same as the dozers being out last weekend fixing the hills and other shit at Millville. Its Just depending on current conditions. Matterly saturday was like Millville more flat and not enough. So they opened up the track to Sunday.
And again, fly away races you get same amount of track time because of two day formats with more practise and 3 heat races for each class. So if in any direction is a negligent difference in amount of laps eating up the track.
As rough as Finland was, there 6-8 rounds in GP like that while you have one round at Southwick. If you carry the argument that rough tracks are better for racing (which it isn't according to racers).
Yeah,,,, but they had wifi!
Pit Row
1) okay then, which GP and year was that? What was the rest of the years' GP's figures, or have you just cherry picked some flyaway/faraway race? If you're talking about early 2000's like I was with the IOW GP, how come that race had qualifiers to whittle it down to 40 riders.?
2) Quote: "numbers have increased with the extra classes"
Well maybe, but how many go on to the GP races? No good having lots of classes that plateau out with no route to the GP races due to cost. The old GP's were open to someone who could qualify on Saturday and join the races on Sunday. It's virtually impossible for a privateer to do that now. How can EMX and 125 races be full but the main races be half empty? Why can't they move up? Could it be that they need to bring a sack of cash to pay for a ride on a team who's budget is 10x more expensive than what it was 20 years ago due to all the extra costs of "the show".?
3 & 4) This is getting like Groundhog Day.... this discussion is about the GP's and their issues so I don't know why you keep whanging on about the AMA. Every time I talk about the GP's you reply with "yeah but; AMA!!" I'm..not..talking...about..the...AMA... ffs.. 🙄
Quote: "How can a worldwide market stick to the same tracks every year??"
Oh, like F1...motoGP...SBK....Indycar etc etc. Give or take a few tracks that come in and out, the iconic ones are what makes each series what it is. F1 went through a phase of going through faceless street circuits and new identical Tilke-designed circuits for cash and fans hated it. They're much more picky now but there's still circuits that are obviously only there because of money and not because they make for good racing. Silverstone is one of the oldest tracks in F1, is popular with the drivers and nearly always has one of the best races of the year, but nearly got dropped from the calendar because of it's "lack of infrastructure". Sound familiar..?
Quote: "Argentina was ranked best track on the circuit!"
Yep, and where is it now...? Gone. I agree it was a great track but it was in a great location with interesting natural features. It wasn't in a hotel car park using trucked-in sand. It was an exception to the GP tracks, not the rule.
Just look it up. All data for alla classes exist from 2002 and fwd. Spain 2002 I think it was early round where everyone one also go geographically.
And anyone can ride a GP. You just need start clearance from your national organisation and any pro that scores point will get that. You pay the fee €1000 and that's it. EMX is €300.
I'm out now, to much time on this.
Management at InFront sit and consider the future for failing MXGP.
For a couple of years now the entry fee is 300 for MXGP, MX2 and EMX.
You do need an international license from your federation which is something like 1250 or 1500 euro for MXGP/MX2 and less for EMX.
That International License thing, if Not required for the EMX races, would be quite the reason (or one of ) for riders Not going into the MX2 races.
I'd not considered that / did not know of the different requirements.
Thanks for putting that forward, rym !
I'm not sure what the exact number is for the emx license but for sure this isnt cheap as well, just less costly then the mx2 license.
You can buy a per race type of license, costing a couple of hundreds. So it's not that if you want to do 1 or 2 wildcards that it sets you back 1500 euro (but it is a lot of money). And the license for mx2 is also valid for EMX, but not the other way around.
It takes a bit of thinking ahead to see what is the best solution for a rider.
Back in the eighties, GPs had no entry fee. If you were good enough to be at a world championship race you weren’t expected to pay for the privilege.
License for the season was about $100 which covered your insurance.
Qualifying earned you start money, plus prize money down to 25th in each moto.
But you all know that.
The international addon used to be like €100 to your pro license that you anyway need. And most pros on that level use the international license anyway because they practise pre season out of country and also race out of country.
Nope can't find it, so can you show where you got that data? I googled that GP and nothing is coming up..? A list of the other GPs to compare would be good too.
Other than that, you swerved the rest of my points for about the 5th time then bailed, so I won't hold my breath for a reply.
Since you said you dont follow all the races since 10 years back i lost interest discussing. You basically dot know what you are talking about when it comes to track design or good racing.
2003 22 on 125, 27 MX1, 24 500. First race of the Year in Netherlands. Similar in last race in Russia.
Where did I say I don't follow all the races since 10 years back? You really need to read stuff properly.. You "lost interest" because you haven't got answers.
Checked those stats and they're way out. First round was in Spain not the Netherlands and it's showing 30 finishers in all three classes. I'm guessing this was the year when they experimented and cut the grid to 30 places but anyway; it's still way different to your figures. I can't find a list of entries so you'll need to show me where you got that. There was no Russian GP. Try again.
Sorry wrong user, J and X in username.
You are looking at 2003. 2002.
Post a reply to: MXGP Finland - WTF - I Don’t Know Man…