Posts
1853
Joined
9/29/2016
Location
TN
US
Edited Date/Time
11/19/2020 3:13pm
I have always wondered why it isn't common practice for the OEM's to begin developing an AMA Pro SX/MX race machine from a 100% stock bike? It has always seemed worrysome to me when I saw a Factory race team testing a clean-sheet newly designed bike, in mid-October, that already had different clamps, linkage, different brand of suspension, etc. on it. In my brain I can see how these riders end up mid season hating their setups and threatening to go buy a stock bike from a local dealership to go ride at home. Many of them sign to a new team and never even ride a stock bike, let alone start with a stock bike when they get a newly designed model from their OEM for that year. When I see Yamaha using Preston, Villo, etc. and I see KTM using Morias, Sleeter, etc. and Honda using Canard, Short, etc., it tells me that it's important to have the production guys working with the Race team to an extent and how it's often been a huge misstep for race teams to not baseline off a stock bike.
And before 'that guy' comes in with the "Pro's are too fast for stock bikes" BS, just save it. I have seen with my own eyes Stewart, Carmichael, Roczen and many others obliterate a track on a stock bike with nothing other than their favorite bend of bars and suspension revalve.
I think these factory teams get ahead of themselves often IMO when it comes to development. Thoughts? Stories you have?
And before 'that guy' comes in with the "Pro's are too fast for stock bikes" BS, just save it. I have seen with my own eyes Stewart, Carmichael, Roczen and many others obliterate a track on a stock bike with nothing other than their favorite bend of bars and suspension revalve.
I think these factory teams get ahead of themselves often IMO when it comes to development. Thoughts? Stories you have?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO9dTmDDO9A
The Shop
I think if our AMA seasons started with MX instead of SX, I bet you the new models would develop better. I say that because SX bikes are often shitty MX bikes and SX is what they have to build it for first... that's a thought. I wouldn't say to do that, but it's worth considering how it affects development.
The same way I shake my head when amateur riders buy a new bike, send it off to their 'suspension' guy to be 'fully setup' for them before having even ridden it?! What??? Just because a review from a different country says the fork is a little stiff does not mean it is too stiff for you. Blows my mind. I understand if you're 18 stone then you'll want it stiffening up for your weight - that's obviously fine. But when you're ballpark and you're sending your suspension to a guy who hasn't even seen you ride to be fully worked and revalved is a waste of money.
That said, top pros put a bike through a set of parameters that 99.99% of us never will, especially in supercross. They know up front that stock isn’t going to work. It would be like me wasting time with stock springs at 230lbs-why bother.
There is one caveat-KW eventually did wind up on production-based forks, but they were still modified.
To OPs point though I've always wondered when a guy dominates why not just use that same bike the next year? Tomac for example seems to struggle getting his SX settings where he likes them so when he finds them and starts winning by 20 seconds a race why change that just for the sake of having a current year bike? In factory form there cant be much of a difference in power, if any at all. Feel could change greatly though so why mess with that?
If you dont know whats wrong with it, how can you ask someone to fix it
Pit Row
Windham went from factory to stock, with hop-up shop (fac connection) suspension, liked it better, supposedly.
The reason is cost guys.
Stock bikes are built for the average rider and priced to sell in the market. If you built out an assembly line bike with all of the top of the line parts, it would be outrageously expensive, plus logistically impossible.
I'll give you a real work example. Ducati released the 1098 Superbike in 2007, a year late they released the 848, which was their middleweight. The 848 came with some lower spec parts like non-monobloc Brembos, a wet clutch, as slightly diff spec wheels (as I recall, it was a while ago).
The 1098 and the 848 cost the EXACT SAME to make in the factory, but you can't sell a 'middleweight' 848 for the same price as a 'superbike' 1098. Meaning the consumer says 'hey it's less power so should cost less'. That cost less came from putting lower end parts on it.
So back to your run of the mill motocross bike. The market says the bikes need to be $8,000-10,000'ish. So you put on cast triples, non-billet calipers, OEM spec wheelsets (ie: lower quality), mass produced radiators, mass produced engine parts, etc etc. Adding billet calipers on not only jacks the price through the roof but the suppliers struggle to make those parts at high volume, due to the quality of them.
What rolls off of the assembly line is a reliable, fast, performance machine that is just fine for the vast majority of its users... with a price point that is still acceptable to the consumer. You are seeing the OEMs start to play around with "Factory Edition" bikes which start to put on the better quality bits, for a premium price, but we are a far cry from true factory specials like you see in the streetbike world, with price tags in the $50,000+ range (and if you were to race one at World Superbike you'd STILL put on more trick shit).
So yes, while a top pro can get on a bog stock bike and 'go fucking fast' on it, that's not what they, or their teams, are interested in. They are interested in putting the best, fastest, most high performance bike they can assemble under their riders asses' (according to the rulebook) so they can go and win races.
Post a reply to: Why Don't Factory Teams All Start With A Stock Bike?