Last 3 SX tracks...

Some people dont mind not have a "supercross triple"

There are only so many track designs you can make in a stadium. I used to get a little burnt out watching similar obstacles, but if you can, try to come up with 3 different tracks/obstacles that haven't been in a previous SX track.

I agree with the over under. I want to see 2 over/unders stacked on top of each other.

if there is no triple...emig isn't gonna be able to say quad......they need to put jumps right in the middle of some the turns. and more sand and add a step up or a huge drop off or a criss cross jump.

My eyes must be failing me, because I see quite a few options for triples.

I have literally 100's of track designs on graph paper I used to make as a kid. I have like 6 notebooks FULL of different tracks. Not 1 of my tracks have the same design and never the same section twice.

hvaughn88 wrote:

My eyes must be failing me, because I see quite a few options for triples.

TRIPLE, like a 65 ft triple, not in the rhythm sections. dumb@$$

Track looked boring on paper this weekend and that was a wild show!!

hvaughn88 wrote:

My eyes must be failing me, because I see quite a few options for triples.

nrosso391 wrote:

TRIPLE, like a 65 ft triple, not in the rhythm sections. dumb@$$

Wow, calm down, dude! Why don't you go scribble some more in your notebook instead of calling people dumbasses. Jeez. You come across as a very, very angry person.

Might want to get your eyes checked. There is clearly a SX triple after the whoop section in SLC.

zehn wrote:

Might want to get your eyes checked. There is clearly a SX triple after the whoop section in SLC.

No way, dude! He meant TRIPLE! Even an ALL CAPS TRIPLE! Don't be such a dumbass!

hvaughn88 wrote:

My eyes must be failing me, because I see quite a few options for triples.

nrosso391 wrote:

TRIPLE, like a 65 ft triple, not in the rhythm sections. dumb@$$

hvaughn88 wrote:

Wow, calm down, dude! Why don't you go scribble some more in your notebook instead of calling people dumbasses. Jeez. You come across as a very, very angry person.

Well don't be a smartass. Do you need a safe space?

hvaughn88 wrote:

My eyes must be failing me, because I see quite a few options for triples.

nrosso391 wrote:

TRIPLE, like a 65 ft triple, not in the rhythm sections. dumb@$$

hvaughn88 wrote:

Wow, calm down, dude! Why don't you go scribble some more in your notebook instead of calling people dumbasses. Jeez. You come across as a very, very angry person.

yea man..come on...don't be such a dumbass....haha

nrosso391 wrote:

TRIPLE, like a 65 ft triple, not in the rhythm sections. dumb@$$

hvaughn88 wrote:

Wow, calm down, dude! Why don't you go scribble some more in your notebook instead of calling people dumbasses. Jeez. You come across as a very, very angry person.

nrosso391 wrote:

Well don't be a smartass. Do you need a safe space?

I wasn't being a smartass. I was being a normal human being with functioning eyes. And suggesting I need a safe space...you clearly are off the mark.

can't even take this serious, how about you take this up with feld instead of vital. Go apply for a job and show them how it's done

hvaughn88 wrote:

My eyes must be failing me, because I see quite a few options for triples.

nrosso391 wrote:

TRIPLE, like a 65 ft triple, not in the rhythm sections. dumb@$$

Yup 65ft standard supercross triple after the whoops before returning to the start straight.

Remember everyone, this is the genius who started a thread suggesting adding turbo's to a motocross bike

Step away from the keyboard bro

hvaughn88 wrote:

My eyes must be failing me, because I see quite a few options for triples.

nrosso391 wrote:

TRIPLE, like a 65 ft triple, not in the rhythm sections. dumb@$$

Hey dumbass....

wasummer46 wrote:

Yup 65ft standard supercross triple after the whoops before returning to the start straight.

Remember everyone, this is the genius who started a thread suggesting adding turbo's to a motocross bike

Step away from the keyboard bro

No its not. You guys are blind. And yes I thought turbos or superchargers for a new class would be interesting, shoot me. You have to admit, those bikes would be torque monsters!

hvaughn88 wrote:

My eyes must be failing me, because I see quite a few options for triples.

nrosso391 wrote:

TRIPLE, like a 65 ft triple, not in the rhythm sections. dumb@$$

huck wrote:

Hey dumbass....

hey dumbass look at the height and size that's about a 40 ft long section. compare it to the finish line jump. not even close,

hvaughn88 wrote:

Wow, calm down, dude! Why don't you go scribble some more in your notebook instead of calling people dumbasses. Jeez. You come across as a very, very angry person.

nrosso391 wrote:

Well don't be a smartass. Do you need a safe space?

hvaughn88 wrote:

I wasn't being a smartass. I was being a normal human being with functioning eyes. And suggesting I need a safe space...you clearly are off the mark.

Holy hell, that "dumb ass" remark came out of left field and pretty quickly. Stop stepping on toes hvaughn88

nrosso391 wrote:

hey dumbass look at the height and size that's about a 40 ft long section. compare it to the finish line jump. not even close,

So you bitch about tracks not having a 'sx triple'...yet then bitch that some of the tracks look the same. Pure genius right there.

I dig the Salt Lake track, I count five 180 corners plus thats a pretty cool first turn. I feel like Vegas always seems to have so much potential but they are limited by the shitty dirt out there. Obviously this wouldn't be an issue if we were shipping dirt across the country.

I know I run the risk of being called a dumbass but why doesn't the finish line count as a triple? 3 jumps, looks pretty big.

nrosso391 wrote:

TRIPLE, like a 65 ft triple, not in the rhythm sections. dumb@$$

hvaughn88 wrote:

Wow, calm down, dude! Why don't you go scribble some more in your notebook instead of calling people dumbasses. Jeez. You come across as a very, very angry person.

nrosso391 wrote:

Well don't be a smartass. Do you need a safe space?

Poor hvaughn88. First you're a dumb@$$. Then you're told "don't be a smartass". You can't win with this guy!

'A supercross Triple' is a waste of space. Much rather see a long rhythem section with varied options or whoops in that 65' area

Just curious as to why you like the standard triple? It was cool in 86 when Bailey did it and Johnson didn't, but after that it was a really boring part of the track. I think its a good idea that they go away. Everyone does it, creates no passing, and doesnt make the racing better. That space can be used for better obstacles, IMO.

Frodad78 wrote:

I know I run the risk of being called a dumbass but why doesn't the finish line count as a triple? 3 jumps, looks pretty big.

You seem to be the only one that gets it. No dumbass here. hahaha. It called a finish line jump. you wouldn't call it a triple because its the finish line jump. Supercross should have better track design guidelines: 2 whoops, 2 TRIPLES, 1 finish jump, all others are rhythm lanes.

nrosso391 wrote:

TRIPLE, like a 65 ft triple, not in the rhythm sections. dumb@$$

huck wrote:

Hey dumbass....

nrosso391 wrote:

hey dumbass look at the height and size that's about a 40 ft long section. compare it to the finish line jump. not even close,

what is that a triple for ants?

Bman_145 wrote:

Just curious as to why you like the standard triple? It was cool in 86 when Bailey did it and Johnson didn't, but after that it was a really boring part of the track. I think its a good idea that they go away. Everyone does it, creates no passing, and doesnt make the racing better. That space can be used for better obstacles, IMO.

Lame. Do you even ride? It's the best part of the track. Getting airtime. Otherwise Moto wouldn't be fun.

Anybody have the layout blueprints?