On the podcast about ktm weege brought up the topic about how dirt bikes have become so advanced and so powerful that not only do they cost a ton of money, but theyre also too fast for the majority of riders and 99% of riders could get by with much slower bikes. He mentioned how its very similar to the sport bike world where a gsxr1000 is waaaayy too much bike for the majority of riders. He said most dirt bike riders could get by with a crf230 with good suspension.
This brings to mind actually what is currently happening in the sport bike world where companies like honda and yamaha no longer sell their 600cc crotch rockets. Yamaha is selling much less advanced but better on the street options like the r7 and r9. By most accounts these bikes are just better on the street than the r6 ever was.
So weege brought up the question of what would it take for the dirt bike industry to do something similar and start selling bikes that are not as advanced and therefore a lot cheaper for the avg person? Isnt the answer to that question to remove the production rule from AMA racing?
The reason why the production bikes have gotten soooo good is because the better the production bike gets, the better the race bike gets. If companies are now starting to go into hard times as well as people not able to afford these super powerful bikes, then is it maybe time to revisit the production rule? If they didnt have to race the oem bikes anymore then the companies would be able to have the super advanced factory bikes for racing and then something for the public that is mellower and cheaper. The only reason they need the finger followers, downdraft, 13,700rpm screamers is for professional competition.
Rider's egos wouldn't accept lower performance.
Yea but like the sport bike market declining sales could force the manufacturers hand. Yamaha sold a bunch of r6’s… until they didnt. Then yamaha decided to build a family of general purpose road engines that could be used across many different types of bikes and now you have the r7 and r9 which by most metrics are better on the road than the r6 ever was and theyre selling well. The difference is motogp doesnt have a production rule so it allowed the brands to make this change. If they had a production rule the r7 and r9 never would have happened. So it seems like the first step would be getting rid of the production rule in ama mx/sx and then the mfg’s can do in a different direction.
For some that could just mean they dont have to follow the couple year total refresh cycle anymore which would mean less r&d money being spent and therefore less costs passed on. If they could stick with the same bike for 10 years instead of 4 then a lot of that savings in time would be passed down to the consumer. Average riders dont need a bike that is at the absolute bleeding edge of tech and therefore extremely expensive.
People buy MX bikes because they are made for competition. Not all are raced, of course, but the vast majority are used on closed courses or off road loops of some kind.
Road bikes are bought for the most part by people who intend to ride them on the street. Some of them are raced on a track, of course, but again the overwhelming majority are strictly ridden on public roads and aren’t pushed to racing limits by their owners.
It makes sense that buyers of road bikes would welcome a ‘toned down’ approach much more than buyers of MX bikes.
Yep that's a significant evolution in the sportsbike market that was completely dying.
The R7 is same weight, 50 hp less, 3 k less than R6, that's the cheaper, more street-oriented option. The R9 is as expensive as the R6 though (for similar power and weight as well).
Of note, this has also changed the competition and rules in world championships, for instance the R9 replaces the R6 in world supersport championship.
I guess the equivalent approach for off-road would be intermediate trail bikes like the incoming Suzuki DRZ4S.
The high-end expensive bikes are not really going anywhere but there's a market for intermediate alternatives, between beginner and competition, bikes that would be more suitable, and more affordable, for the average rider.
The Shop
"So weege brought up the question of what would it take for the dirt bike industry to do something similar and start selling bikes that are not as advanced and therefore a lot cheaper for the avg person?"
Carbureted two strokes. We can all enjoy performance suspension, but with motors the majority of us can work on in the garage and that don't cost a fortune to repair.
As much as I love my modern four stroke, I kind of the miss the days of simplicity.
Exactly.
Used to routinely tear down my older, carbureted two strokes
Carburaters, top and bottom ends.
Very few are able to do that themselves these days.
Either, two, or four strokes.
DH mt bikes, and upper end X-C bikes are the same.
Too complicated for the average rider to tear down, and maintain.
I understand completely on the original post. I’m building a 2007 yz250f chassis with a crf230 engine now because I’m sure I’ll be super fun. Low maintenance. And did I mention fun? My oldest son rides a crf230 that we’ve struggled with suspension upgrades and it’s probably one of the most fun play bikes there is.
If I wanna race I’ll pull out my new yz450. Or ride my YZ250 smoker. But a general air cooled low maintenance bike with awesome suspension would outsell anything on the market.
Similar to the evolution of sport bikes and, as Joey pointed out, many parallels to mountain bikes. Also consider the evolution of muscle cars and Jeeps/utility vehicles.
Jeeps were designed to be cheap utility vehicles to bash off road. Now they are high end, overpriced monstrosities that are too expensive to risk damaging off road. Muscle cars started as cheap, quick, fun cars aimed at the 16-24 crowd. Now they are so overblown and overpriced that you only see gray hair in them. We can all recall the days in the 80's and early 90's when a GSXR-750 was $3500 and you could not swing a dead cat without hitting 10 sport bikes. Now I never see sport bikes. They are $20K and the guys who have the money to buy them (and the insurance) don't have the back to ride them.
MX was always the poor man's motorsport. With the increased tech and price, the poor man has been priced right out of the sport. It's also supposed to be a young man's sport, but now young men cannot afford to participate. The EFI 125's are the most glaring example. 125's are supposed to be simple, light, cheap, and affordable to teenagers as a step-up bike from minis. We screwed that up.
Yea he brought that up and I think 2 strokes definitely have their place as well. This also comes back to the competition question because in the us 250 2 strokes are not allowed to race in the 250 class. If this was changed it would allow much more competitive bikes to compete against the 250f’s for much cheaper. Making a 50hp 250cc 2 stroke is fairly cheap and straight forward whereas making a 50hp 250cc 4 stroke can cost $10,000 or more. If they were allowed to compete then maybe this also pushes the manufacturers to make them again. I think changing this rule is another way to help bring down the costs of the sport.
The price of the bike is only a fraction of the problem. More so, it’s having a close free place to ride. Most don’t get into the sport by starting at a practice track that they pay 45 bucks to ride and drive 2hrs to get to. The days of semi “legal” riding areas that you could get to from your house are mostly gone, or surrounded by people inching to call the police.
I am always baffled why my 1984 Honda XR200 I had when i was 14 was a better bike then the 2008 Yamaha TTR230 I bought my step son for his 12th birthday.
Hey motorcycle makers! Put a fucking kickstarter back on beginner bikes and some late 1980's mx suspension. It would be the best bike ever.
Leave the water cooling off too. I don't care if its slow. Anybody else notice how much fun Carson Brown has on old slow bikes?
Yamaha’s problem wasn’t lack of sales, it was lack of countries to sell it in. The R6 was only emissions compliant in the US after 2019. Yamaha made the decision to drop the bike (race spec excluded) instead of make it for only America or update the engine to be globally compliant. The same is true for the R1 but I am assuming the higher price point makes it profitable enough to build each year for the American market.
The main reason all OEM’s are moving to twins and triples is emissions. Those engines are easier to hit the strict emissions of Europe and China. The engine performance is also far superior for the average person riding on the street or even doing the occasional track day.
I really don't think the 600 siper sports were selling as well though
Spot on. The number of people that "need a 450" because they weigh 200lb+ is comical. No, you think you need a 450 because you have to come to complete stop and make a 4 point turn in every corner.
That said though people should buy what they want, its their money. The production rule is a very interesting point though.
When I was a kid I had a Yamaha IT 200 (got it when I was 14). It was the perfect bike. It blew the doors off an XR 200 while still being a low maintenance, easy to ride, simple air cooled bike. Kawasaki made the KDX 200 for years after Yamaha discontinued the IT. I bet they would still sell if the kept making them.
AJP has been selling "simple" motorcycles for years and are still a really small manufacturer from Portugal. GPX is pictured above and they are selling inexpensive entry level off-road motorcycles, too. I don't know about GPX but a friend has owned an AJP for the last 10 years or so and it's a well put together bike. AJP-USA is the same importer for SWM motorcycles (and Rieju) that use the old "Italian Husqvarna" motors and have been selling inexpensive bikes for years but they still remain a niche motorcycle here in the USA. My point is that if people really wanted motorcycles like these, the "niche brands" making the more simple motorcycles would have been more successful in the last 10 years or more.
https://www.ajp-usa.com/spr240-2025-1
It still comes down to sales. The reason the emissions killed em off is because they were no longer selling enough bikes to justify spending the money required to make them meet the new emissions standards. If they were still selling like hot cakes the investment would have been worth it to keep access to that market. The toyota camry also has to keep meeting stricter and stricter emission requirements but because they sell large amounts of them the continued investment is worth it.
Pit Row
We can pretty much assume the floor for the MSRP of a performance dirt bike is what they list for a yz125, about $7k. There are trail bikes like the klx300 with a lower MSRP but the frame, suspension, and brakes are compromised to hit the price point. If you want a bike with capable running gear you are going to have to pay for it regardless of the engine.
I find the cost argument to be flawed when 30-60 thousand dollar side by sides are flying off the sales floor. Here in Vegas every weekend there are hundreds of them rolling around the desert south towards state line with their colored LED lights all over the place making it look like a motor vehicle EDC party! With every on of those is a Huge camping trailer and lifted F350… so people are spending considerable amounts of money and i doubt a 10000 dollar 450 is what’s keeping them from buying MX bikes.
R7's are not selling well now lots of push back now stating it's not a suitable replacement for the R6. Considering the R7 is just an mt07 in more of a sport bike form. Yamaha is going to experience the same thing with the new R9. Since it's basically the mt09 in sport bike form.
Every SXS with accompanying Bro-dozer and toy hauler is financed to the gills. We don't really expect 13 yr olds to finance $10K EFI 125's, do we?
Remember how awesome it was to watch a 125 national? Due to the lower power output the riders would absolutely wring the heck out of them to get every ounce of power out of them. And it wasn't just the top 4 or 5 riders doing it, heck guy's clear down in 20th position were pushing their bikes to the limit. I miss seeing that...
Seems Suzuki figured it out, evolution vice redesign every 3 or 4 years? Saying that I just bought a 24 fc350, not sure if there is or could be a better bike for me
500cc two strokes went away. Dialing back the power is not unprecedented. I’m back to roding a lot after a few years away. One very apparent observation is that very, very few people are using the power of a 450. Going to ~300s/350s would be better for most.
I disagree. I have had two R6 track bikes and thought the R7 was a joke. The R9 seems about right. Full sports bike chassis and enough power. Similar HP to the R6 but much more torque. That will be a fun bike. I also had an 890 Duke that was fully track ready. What a blast to ride! 800-900cc twin/triple with a proper chassis is a great place to be. Not crazy, but enough to be fun and make you pay a little attention on corner exit.
You can finance anything
I think that is to make it way to simple saying 230 would be enough. I have issues now riding the 350, that's why I stay on 450, for the torque and ease of riding it smooth. Not for the 62+HP.
Im not a rever, im a smooth rider and hate when you have to regrip or ovegrip the throttle to go reasonably fast on smaller bore bikes. 125 days where fun, but that's over.
If I was forced to go on a stock 350, I probably would give up riding. Maybe could prepp a 350 to give it more like a 450 bottom, and survive.
For you viewing pleasure...
So this bankruptcy (according to what Weege was told and reported) is because they invested too much in to pedal bicycles? I find that extremely hard to believe.
Post a reply to: To answer weeges question (ktm pod)