Edited Date/Time:
A bike doing poorly in the shootouts can make or break how well they are going to sell for a given year.
One big void that needed to be filled in our industry was the adding of different resources to help determine which bike to pick. This year has been pretty awesome with: Keefer Testing, Vital MX, Transworld Motocross, and a few other magazine/ websites designed to help select which bike is best. I think that Motocross Action, a magazine that I love, has lost its grip on being the standard for telling me which bike is best. I was on their website today and I saw this quote in regards to the 2004 250 two stroke shootout and it illustrated this to a high degree:
"The 2004 Yamaha YZ250 could have stood on the top step of the 250 shootout podium just as easily as the RM250. It has better forks, more stable handling, superior reliability, preferable tires, a clockwork-like clutch and the broadest powerband in the class. And, it’s no secret that the RM250 engine is a direct copy of the YZ. So why isn’t the Yamaha first? That’s simple: Yamaha played it safe. With the exception of the powerband, Yamaha didn’t take any chances in 2004. Everything is good, but we wanted to be dazzled."
They were looking to be "Dazzled" and this is why a bike didn't win a shootout. I love Motocross Action magazine and will continue to get excited when it arrives but have you all noticed a huge shift in how this stuff is done? How many bikes over the years got pushed aside for reasons that you all wouldn't consider valid?
Discuss....