Posts
1478
Joined
8/2/2006
Location
Wheaton, MD
US
Edited Date/Time
1/27/2012 1:02pm
What sense does it make for the AMA and the FIM to propose that the manufacturers replace the current 450 single cylinder thumpers with engines that are 100cc's smaller? What exactly are they trying to accomplish?
Yeah, I've heard some lip service regarding safety and noise, but hey, motocross racing is dangerous at every level... people have been paralyzed from crashes occuring at walking speeds... and 50cc bikes can be eardrum-shatteringly loud.
So really, what's the point? To force us to buy new bikes again in order to race under the sanctioning body's rules?
It pisses me off that this is even a matter under discussion by the sanctioning bodies.
Yeah, I've heard some lip service regarding safety and noise, but hey, motocross racing is dangerous at every level... people have been paralyzed from crashes occuring at walking speeds... and 50cc bikes can be eardrum-shatteringly loud.
So really, what's the point? To force us to buy new bikes again in order to race under the sanctioning body's rules?
It pisses me off that this is even a matter under discussion by the sanctioning bodies.
KTM said, maybe 10 years ago that the 4-stroke was going to raise the costs of motocross racing so that most people won't be able to afford to race anymore... and I don't think that is very far away from the truth.
Besides, the guys with money will spend it to make the 350s go as fast as the 450s anyway... and they'll blow 'em up trying. How affordable is THAT?
Speaking of affordable, China Inc. is poised to take the Japanese OEMs lunch money anyway. Look at how they floored the pitbike market. You'd be crazy to spend $1800 OTD for a stock XR50 when you can get a big wheel, long-travel, 4-speed, 124cc stroker for less.
I think the FIM has an interest in keeping racing affordable as well, and that's good!
350s... I'm not too sure that's the best way to go. As many people have mentioned on other message boards, they should find other solutions to slow down the 450s, for example noise control.
The Shop
Giuseppe Luongo hinted about this stuff last year at the MXdN, saying, "The MX1 bikes are too big." When I asked what that meant for the MX3 bikes, he suggested, "Maybe the current 450s would become MX3," or something like that.
The Japanese OEMs spend tens of millions of dollars on R&D as well as market research, and the AMA and FIM expect them to make manufacturing decisions based on what the sanctioning bodies think? Which apparently is based on mere opinion? It just doesn't make any sense.
I think we need to be real about who's really running things. The AMA and FIM didn't kill the two-stroke, they just helped the OEMs do it.
Right.
Why not go all the way and just limit SX to 250F bikes? They're already on the market, so it'll be easy to implement, right?
It's all a buncha BS, man...
Anyway, why do we care? The racing will be just as good if they all showed up on 125s...
TFS reported originally (in his weekend window) that the AMA and FIM met over the weekend at the Spanish GP and one of the things they discussed was proposing to the OEMs that they make 350cc-sized bikes, because 450s are just too "much" or something.
This caused much confusion, wailing and gnashing-of-teeth by the hoi polloi (like me).
So Teefus broke it down further in a thread on MotoTalk/News, giving the example that Whitelock had heard the complaints that the 450s were tearing up the track, specifically the whoops, creating danger (where none existed before? that's laughable), and Whitelock, standing right next to our intrepid reporter, saw for hisself the damage created and the resulting crash by a 250F rider.
So I guess the point is, everyone at the races is saying that 450s are too damn big; the sanctioning bodies are taking the complaints of their constituents to the manufacturers; and none of it matters to the fans anyway, 'cause we'll buy whatever's on sale, and watch them no matter if they're racing 50's. So we may as well STFU.
Yeah, I missed that point.
Here's my point: oh wait, I don't have a point. She-it!
Now I remember: does the motorcycle-buying public have any say in this? I think we do, and I think that's proven by the dollars spent in market research by the OEMs. Of course, I have no way of knowing exactly how much they spend, and I may be completely wrong... maybe they DON'T do any market research to determine if Americans would be willing to pay six-grand for a limited-use dirtbike. That would be surprisingly bad business practice, if true.
Truthfully, no one asked me if I wanted a small-displacement V-twin motocross bike... but Aprilia made one anyway, and the AMA and FIM say I can't race it in any of their sanctioned races. That sucks for me and Aprilia.
I like the 450's
I do think the 450s have completely changed the way tracks break in (or down). You end up with lots more one-line follow-the-leader stuff. And the ability to pull the trigger coming out of corners and clear a retarded amount of the next straightaway has totally changed Supercross...and not for the better.
Post edited by: GuyB, at: 4/18/2007 5:47 AM
And don't forget, hopping up their 350s so they're almost as fast as kitted 450s...! And then replacing topends after they grenade from being hopped up!
I think the whole "affordable" argument is a red herring. There's another motive out there that they're not talking about.
Hey Steve, that's interesting that Whitelock was musing about smaller bikes back during the outdoor season... was he fielding complaints back then about 450s being too fast/torquey/whatever?
I guess it's up to the sanctions to watch and make changes based on the best interests of the competitors.
Just as an example, the NHRA has done things in the fuel classes to limit the top speed on the cars, like mandating gearing that they can run, and also requring a spec fuel mixture (partly to eliminate oildowns from blown engines). Of course, they've probably already exceeded the speeds that they were trying to get bumped down from, but you get the idea.
NASCAR was worried about cars going too fast on the superspeedways, and cars going into the stands, which is why we have restrictor plate races.
WTF? I thought the teams were the ones pulling Whitelock's chain and telling him how 450s are too fast and powerful and making the tracks dangerous by cupping the whoops?
If it's not the people actually doing the racing that are making the complaints, then who is it? And if they are not the racers, why should they be listened to?
I'm confused. Maybe I'm reading this wrong. And in any case, I'm a vet racer... we don't race by displacement, we race by ability. We get to "run what ya brung", so it really doesn't matter to me if the AMA jerks around with the engine sizes. But I was really hoping that the sanctioning body was going to someday start using some common sense while rulemaking. I guess that's just asking too much.
Pit-to-racer radio communications still illegal? Check.
On-board telemetry/data capture still illegal? Check.
After-market fuel injection? No? Check.
Multiple-cylinders/forced air induction still against the rules? Yep.
Hey, I have an idea: let's start a series using electric bikes... noise problem solved. AMA?
Post edited by: Pdub, at: 4/21/2007 8:49 PM
Post a reply to: 350 or 450?