I’ve never had the chance to ride with one of these things, and they’re only available for modern bikes, but I’m told they are the shizznit — the cat’s pajamas, the real deal, the best thing since sliced bread, etc. One of my buddies — Bill Ramsey of Motorcycle Accessory Shop in Mesa, AZ (2319 West Main Street, Mesa, AZ 85201-6839 (480) 835-6228) — says he tried to talk Al into giving him some parts to use to get one working on a vintage bike, but didn’t have any luck.

That’s too bad, because the new Core EXP clutch kit is, relatively, affordable at $800 — at least compared to the $2,000 these things cost originally. Now I know all you vintage guys are out there going, “What!? 800-freakin’ dollars!? I’ve bought entire bikes for less than that!” But from what I’ve been told these things are worth at least two CDI ignition upgrades and, if you’re on an old points-based ignition system that’s $450 per.

I admit, there’s probably only a tiny, tiny fraction of VMX riders who would shell out for something like this, but it would be nice to have the opportunity. I’m told if you ever ride with one you’ll never go back.

So tune in and see what Al has to say.

I came across this GPS and Dirt Bikes post over at the Dirt Bike Blogger. There’s a lot of good info, but the most interesting thing to me was this part about geocaching:

A GPS unit will also allow you to participate in geocaching – a great addition to trail riding. Geocaching is basically a high-tech treasure hunt. Caches are hidden and listed on the Internet (try Geocaching.com) with only their coordinates and sometimes additional clues. The caches generally include a logbook and pencil to record visitors, and tokens or prizes that can be traded.

The author also discusses using the GPS and some additional software to map your own trails, and build your own maps. If you’re interested in such things have a look at the whole article.

Oh, they have archives too, if you can’t catch the race live. But watching it live is very good.

The revolution that Better Place is betting on isn’t in what they’re doing — electric cars — but in how they’re doing it. The company is taking the business model Apple Computer used to revolutionize the music business and applying it to green transportation.

The Better Place electric car charging system involves generating electrons from as much renewable energy — such as wind and solar — as possible and then feeding those clean electrons into a national electric car charging infrastructure. This consists of electricity charging spots with plug-in outlets — the first pilots were opened in Israel this week — plus battery-exchange stations all over the respective country. The whole system is then coordinated by a service control center that integrates and does the billing.

Under the Better Place model, consumers can either buy or lease an electric car from the French automaker Renault or Japanese companies like Nissan (General Motors snubbed Agassi) and then buy miles on their electric car batteries from Better Place the way you now buy an Apple cellphone and the minutes from AT&T. That way Better Place, or any car company that partners with it, benefits from each mile you drive. G.M. sells cars. Better Place is selling mobility miles.

So what’s the motorcycle connection? Maybe it’s KTM and their Zero Emissions Bike or their patented hybrid, two-wheel-drive technology. It doesn’t appear to be the existing behemoths of the industry, including Honda, Harley-Davidson, or BMW.

But Friedman’s point is that, wherever it comes from, it will come. And probably sooner rather than later. As motorcyclists we should be prepared for what entirely new business models could mean to our pass-time, and to the political environment in which we exist. Greater access to quiet, green transportation will make our loud, smoking bikes even more of an outlier, and subject to even greater regulation.

We need to get our act together now, and figure out how to create a united effort to protect the rights we still have, while we still have them.

KTM is smart to be getting a head start on this. Ever since Algore (the guy who invented the internets) published his book labeling the internal combustion engine as the primary cause of all Mankind’s troubles, the EcoNazis have been chomping at the bit to rid the planet of this scourge. I hope they don’t succeed, but there’s little doubt that there is a lot of money to be made for the companies that can effectively harness the power of the electron to provide motive force.

I just hope future generations are still able to feel the thrill and hear the roar created by capturing the power of fire in the internal combustion motor. Found via Motocross Action.

Check out this page on modern two-stroke weapons. Gotta love that new Maico! Is that cool, or what? Tubular steel frame, two-stroke motor, modern styling… Man, that’s cool. I’d actually buy a pit pass at a National to see stuff like that. Now if they’d just do a twin-shock version…

I’m going to buy one of their t-shirts. Check out their CafePress store and show your colors. I don’t know if that makes me a member or not, but at least they’ll know I’m a two-stroke supporter.

It takes approximately 150 million years for organic matter to become oil that we pump out of the ground. We all know the ramifications of this – finite oil supplies, ever-growing demand for a limited resource, economic upheaval as supplies dwindle in our energy-hungry world. We also know the basics of renewable energy – government subsidized ethanol production, rising corn (and food) prices, a lifetime, government-guaranteed annuity for ArcherDanielsMidland, etc. And the attendant problems of switching our vast base of petroleum-based engines to alcohol.

But what if we could reduce that 150-million-year cycle to three days? What if we could create, in that three days, a grade of crude oil that is as high, or higher, than any currently available bio-oil? An oil that is really oil, not an alcohol substitute for oil.

a startup company called brief video on how the algal biodiesel process works. Here’s a C-Net video on the broad applications of this algae-based oil.

Although algae-based oils have been discussed for decades, this is first time that a scalable, industrial-grade process for producing them has been developed. The implications for this, if it ultimately proves viable, are enormous. Paired with high-performance, clean diesel technology — such as that developed by Audi and Peugeot for their endurance racing teams — could significantly change the automotive landscape.

What about CO2 emissions? According to Solazyme:

The algal biodiesel fueling the car is made through Solazyme’s proprietary process for manufacturing high-value, functionally-tailored oils from algae. This process, which uses standard industrial fermentation equipment, yields a biofuel that significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions and is biodegradable, nontoxic and safe.

That almost sounds too good to be true, and maybe it is. But it’s clear (at least to me) that the current approach to ethanol is not even a short-term solution. Trading food for driving is a dumb approach. It takes at least six months to grow a crop of corn for ethanol, then you have to break it down into its constituent parts to make the fuel, which basically wastes all the corn parts. With single-cell algae you don’t have to wait six months, and you don’t have to break it down nearly as much.

This isn’t a panacea. The algae has to be fed sugar to grow, and the sugar comes from corn syrup, sugar cane, wood chips, etc. So it’s still going to require some sort of organic matter. But it doesn’t have to be a primary food stock. This looks like something worth watching.

Recently a vintage racing/CZ friend posted the following query here:

Hey Terry, Correct me if I’m wrong because I’m not totally sure, but hasn’t Calif banned 2 stroke sales there or is planning on doing so?

Now this friend is pretty active in the vintage scene and has been around motorcycles for a long time, so while I thought he was incorrect I took his query seriously. A quick Google search turned up all sorts of claims, questions, wild assertions, and misinformation with very little real truth. I located a California government site, the California Department of Boating and Waterways, which had clear language dispelling the myth (see my original response for details), but the CDBW is all about boats, not motorcycles or ATVs. So clearly a more diligent search was called for.

I spent the time to find and read the actual California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations concerning Off Highway Recreational Vehicles — meaning all motorcycles and ATVs. What I found was what I thought I would find, which I will discuss below. But aside from merely satisfying my own curiosity and answering my friend’s question, I was really concerned with how widely gross mischaracterizations of the law are spread across the internet and taken as common knowledge. After all, if this impression exists among long-time enthusiasts, it’s clear we have a disconnect between “common knowledge” and fact. The past, present and future of two-stroke technology seems mired in Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD).

So let’s start with the facts, at least as I have been able to identify them. The following is a direct quote from the CARB OHRV regulations page:

The history of developing regulations for OHVs

To improve air quality in California, ARB saw clear and compelling reasons to adopt the off-highway recreational vehicle regulations. When the regulations were adopted in 1994, the Board concluded that with three years lead-time, manufacturers would be able to produce and sell in California a full range of OHVs meeting the new emission standards. It was anticipated that at first manufacturers would produce OHVs powered by cleaner four-stroke engines (this was the case in the 1980s with on-highway motorcycles) and that modified, cleaner two-stroke engines would later come into use. At the 1994 Board meeting, industry was, for the most part, in agreement with ARB’s proposal. Industry and trade organization testimony centered on requests for a time extension for OHVs with engines 90cc and under, which the Board approved.After the regulations were passed, however, OHV user groups and dealers began meeting with ARB staff and asking for more flexible regulations. These requests were made at a time when it was becoming apparent that OHV manufacturers were not providing a wide range and number of emission-compliant dirt bikes. Initially, there were less than 10 emission-compliant dirt bike models available, which resulted in potentially fewer sales and economic hardships for many dealers; particularly those dealers selling brands that had no compliant models. To address this problem, the Board approved amendments to the regulations that provided relief but still retained emission reductions.

And the following paragraph from the CDMV’s OHRV Guidelines PDF:

Green Sticker

Year round use at all California OHRV riding areas.Green stickers are issued to OHRVs certified by their manufacturer to meet the California OHRV emission standards (anti-pollution) and ALL 2002 model year and older OHRVs. OHRVs certified to meet emissions standards are identified by a label attached to the vehicle frame by the manufacturer.

Note that the only line that mentions two-stroke is the following, “…and that modified, cleaner two-stroke engines would later come into use.” Assuming that CARB’s representation of its history and regulations is accurate we can assume the following: California did not attempt to ban two-stroke technology in 1994, hasn’t since, and is not now planning to ban two-stroke technology. In fact, you can still ride your old two-stroke anywhere you want. What you can’t do is ride a new (2003 or later), non-compliant two-stroke anywhere you want.

This is not an endorsement of the CARB regulations. It’s not any kind of statement about the regulations at all. This is not about whether the CARB rules were, are, or will be good, bad, or indifferent. It’s a simple observation of fact in the face of a lot of misinformation. CARB’s goal was to reduce emissions into the land, air, and water. Two-strokes of the era were — for the most part — dirty, oily, nasty, high-emissions engines. Those engines could not pass the new standards. But that is nowhere near a ban on the fundamental technology. So much for the facts of the matter. Now let’s get to what may have happened.

Let me tell you all a story ’bout a man named Fud…

The following story is based on research, industry observations, and conversations with industry personnel – including an engineer and a motorcycle company president. Let’s assume that a large, multi-national corporation (for simplicity we’ll use a fictitious entity called Company H) manufactures everything from inexpensive lawn mowers and power generators to motorcycles and $40,000 SUVs. Every item in their massive product line is powered by a four-stroke motor. Every item, that is, except a small group of dirt bikes. The company has enormous investments and intellectual property in the development, marketing, and sales of four-stroke-driven products.

Company H is aware that certain proprietary methods, techniques, or technologies for lowering two-stroke emissions are either available or under development, some by their primary competitors. But Company H doesn’t own any of the intellectual property (patents) associated with this improvement. Further, two-stroke engines do not fit the company’s financial model — costing extra for development (since they can’t leverage their vast institutional knowledge of four-strokes) — while generating lower margins in sales and service parts.

Company H is not alone. It is part of an oligopoly – a situation where there is only a small group of sellers for a product or service. According to Oligopoly Watch:

Oligopolies have been around as long as commerce has. The term denotes a situation where there are few sellers for a product or service. The members of an oligopoly change the nature of a free market. While they can’t dictate price and availability like a monopoly can, they often turn into friendly competitors, since it is in all the members’ interest to maintain a stable market and profitable prices.The new oligopoly is made up of multinational corporations that have chosen specific product or service categories to dominate. In each category, over time, only two to four major players prosper. Starting a new company in that market segment is difficult, and the few that do succeed are often gobbled up or run out of business by the oligopolies.

We know from watching the actions of numerous oligopolies — in agriculture, mining, media, pharmaceuticals, book publishing, banking, defense, etc. — that they have common behavior patterns. Key (for this story) among those patterns is this: Oligopolies try to master three basic forces: shelf life, shelf space, and mind space.

Let’s play company CEO

Assume that you are CEO of Company H. Your name is Mr. Fud-san. You don’t want to make two-stroke motors. You have no economic incentive to make them. While they may be cheaper to operate and maintain for your customers, they generate less revenue for you. It’s not in the best interest of your shareholders to spend money making two-stroke products. You already have everything you need to make very profitable (much more profitable than two-stroke) products using your own technology. From your perspective two-stroke motors are an unnecessary, low-margin nuisance. As CEO of Company H you are in a very good position. You are Number 1 in the motorcycle market. Another key principle of oligopolies is “Being #1 is great, being #2 is good, being #3 is difficult, being #4 or higher is a losing game.” As Numero Uno you have the unique opportunity to quietly influence Nos. 2, 3, and 4. These folks know that if you put your mind to developing four-stroke race motors you will succeed, and they do not want to be unprepared. They know that, as No. 1, your marketing has great influence over the market and taking you on head-to-head just causes problems for everyone.

Even if they have new two-stroke technologies in the works you know they will follow No. 1, because another rule of oligopolies is “Members of oligopolies tend to converge.” Whoever leads the market sets the tone for product, marketing and message for everyone else. It’s all in their best interest. Now you have to start making some moves. You have to signal your friendly enemies and begin working on the mindspace of your market.

What should you do?

The 1994 CARB regulations have given you a fantastic launching point. You can leverage this to position your company as the “green” leader for years to come. How about creating uncertainty about the future of the two-stroke by announcing that you plan to completely phase out two-stroke motor production? That generates a lot of publicity and leads to obvious questions about why. You can now legitimately create doubt that two-strokes can meet emissions standards by pointing out how dirty they are. You can also answer that you have great, compliant four-stroke technology either on the market or under development. You can promote your four-stroke engines as cleaner and better for the environment. The fact that there are equally efficient, compliant two-stroke technologies available or under development is irrelevant. These products are not in your plans. They won’t be on the market for a year or two, and you have a window of opportunity, the power, and the tools to erase them from the public consciousness.

Your marketing department goes to work pitching the “massive power” and ridability of these new four-strokes. Fear that two-strokes have no future becomes your ally. You put your copious money where your mouth is. You begin to pressure motorcycle governing bodies and rules committees to support you in this important, environmentally-friendly (and oh, by the way, very profitable) move. The rules and regulations and class structures grow more friendly to your technology every year. The tracks themselves begin to change as your preferred products overwhelm all others. You know you have to move quickly, because some of those two-stroke technologies might work out, and you don’t control them. So you need to get control of the market’s mindspace. You need to get products (yours and your friendly competitors’) on the market so you can control shelf space, and you need to establish them early enough to control shelf life. This is important, because “Oligopolies watch their flanks, fearing disruption.”

The last thing you want is for someone to disrupt your plan by selling an efficient, compliant, two-stroke. Soon the two-stroke disappears from race tracks. Race commentators drone on about how fast and powerful these “450Fs” are. It becomes “common knowledge” that two-strokes can’t compete. It becomes common knowledge that two-strokes can’t pass emissions standards. And it becomes common knowledge (at least outside California) that California has banned two-strokes. Even though each and every one of these things is 100% false.

Problem solved for Mr. Fud-san. R&D expenses are down, margins are up, shareholders are happy. Wall Street (and the Nikkei) are happy. Isn’t it great to be the CEO of a multi-national corporation and No. 1 in your market? Everybody is happy except a small percentage of riders who pay attention and realize they’ve just been screwed. But the rest go blithely on their way buying your new four-stroke products. None of this is illegal, or even unethical (if you believe that multinational corporations have ethics.) It’s all just part of how big businesses work. And how oligopolies work.

What’s the moral of the story?

This story is fictional, but it is informed by research that I’ve done and conversations I’ve had with people in the industry who are in a position to know. The motorcycle industry in general, and MX in particular, is an oligopoly. This matters. The natural behavior of any and every oligopoly is to control the market, competition, and disruption. This is not the same thing as making money. Making money can be done in a free market. Oligopolies warp the free market. They maneuver and manipulate what we hear and think and “know” in their best interest. If there is one lesson I want to get across here it is that this is not a story of aberrant behavior. It is a story of predictable, observable, natural behavior. Which is why we must be constantly vigilant and skeptical anytime a market leader claims to be doing the “right thing”. There is always an underlying motivation, and that always supercedes our best interest. In the end it always leads to less competition, increased prices, and less choice. Which is exactly what we’ve had in MX for the past 20 years.

I am not against four-strokes. I do not favor two-strokes. I just don’t like having my choices reduced simply because it’s in the best interests of some big corporation. I favor choice, competition, and variety, but these things are the bane of an oligopoly.

What might have prevented this little story? If, back in 1994, we had a riders’ organization that actually protected and promoted the future of motorcycling, rather than the future of motorcycle manufacturers, things might have been different. If we were not so myopic in our own view of what matters, but rather looked at motorcycling as a whole and understood that we are both affected by and affect what happens in the broader motorcycling world, things might have been different. If we had been willing, as a group, to be more skeptical and less accepting of bold new graphics as a bribe, things might have been different.

But things were not different, and for the past 14 years we have willingly wallowed in this corporate mind game. It’s been long in coming but, thankfully, we are beginning to see the fruits of a backlash against this myopic approach, and the FIM seems to have grown a pair of balls with their 2010 rules. I say full speed ahead and let’s hope the US follows suit.

2) Motocross Classes: as of 2010, single cylinder engines will be used in MX1 and MX2 and multicylinder in MX3, whether 2 or 4-stroke (open concept). The cubic capacity will be 250cc in MX2, and up to 650cc in MX3. Discussions are currently being held about the cubic capacity in MX1. A decision should be taken in the next three months. Concerning the MX2 class, a maximum age limit of 23 years will be introduced. Moreover, a World Champion will be allowed to defend his title only one time (in the following year).

3) The FIM Junior World Championship will have an additional class as of 1.1.2010: 65cc. All the classes (65cc, 85cc, 125cc) will be exclusively 2-stroke.

I think this is a move that’s long overdue. I’d prefer that there not be a specific technology decreed, even for the tiddler classes, but I’m glad to see this happening. For far too long MX has been run as a corporate organ for the Big 4 Japanese mfgs. We can only hope that AMA/DMG/NPG follow suit.

A rule whose time has passed

The idea of granting 4-strokes a 2:1 displacement advantage (30% in MX3) was fine 20+ years ago, and was intended to prompt the development of competitive 4-stroke engines. That purpose has been served. But for at least the last 10 years the net effect has been to kill all 2-stroke technical development. This, I have been told, was at the behest of Honda, who have been dedicated to eliminating 2-strokes from the market since shortly after Soichiro’s death in 1991.

The end result has been a very cloistered, cozy, little world of coopetition for the Big 4 in MX. They leisurely roll out technology as it suits their budgets, without fear that anyone new will come along and rock their boat. Now that may change. We have long needed technical rules that foster innovation and invite new players into the sport. One of the reasons so many of us are not interested in modern bikes is they are so damn boring – not an ounce of personality amongst a warehouse full of them.

The myths of modern marketing

We have all heard the anti-2-stroke arguments — 2-strokes can’t compete anymore, 2-strokes can’t meet emissions standards, 2-strokes are too hard to ride, etc. Many of these “everyone knows…” comments started in a Honda marketing department and their pervasiveness should serve as a lesson to us that just because a major motorcycle manufacturer says a thing is true, doesn’t mean it is. Thanks to Honda and their motorcycle keiretsu we are well past the point where even general comparisons between 2-stroke and 4-stroke MX motors are valid. You simply can’t compare a technology that hasn’t been developed for a decade in any meaningful way to the state-of-the-art in another technology. It’s nonsense.

In conversations with a well-placed industry engineer I was told that the real issue for Honda (who, ironically, have declared they will produce no 2-strokes after 2010) is intellectual property – they don’t own any patents on two-stroke technology. So, like any big, market-dominating company, they attempted to kill off what they could not control. It appears they have failed.

Which is better?

This does not mean that the different designs don’t have relative advantages and disadvantages. In a Cycle News editorial titled “R.I.P. Two-Strokes? Not So Fast” (Cycle News issue #26, July 2, 2008, pg 60) Michael Scott discusses the 2-stroke situation in the context of the dissolution of the 250GP road race class. He lists a number of the well-documented, legitimate differences in the 2-stroke vs 4-stroke debate — simplicity via fewer moving parts, lighter weight for a given displacement and, typically, better power/performance at the smaller displacements. Scott interviews Aprilia two-stroke engine designer Jan Witteveen and notes that modern technologies have brought two-stroke fuel efficiency, emissions, and performance well into the modern era. Modern direct injection significantly lowers the amount of oil needed in the cylinder, and there are already 2-stroke engines which meet stringent Euro-3 emissions standards. With newer materials like ceramics and carbon fiber the need for oil injection may soon be completely eliminated.

Witteveen is, understandably, a 2-stroke advocate and insists, “There is definitely a need for the two-stroke motorcycle engine, particularly in small capacities.” He recently designed the innovative Maxtra 125 for Chinese company Haojue and is currently working on a rather secretive project for the future of the 2-stroke engine. It is likely the emerging markets (like China) that have driven the realization that 2-strokes are not only viable, but necessary. Cost matters in these markets and 2-strokes have, historically, been cheaper to design and manufacture.

No favorites

It will be very interesting to see how this all plays out. I’m curious why this rule change hasn’t seen more conversation on this side of the pond. It has to be pissing the Big 4 off, having spent millions developing, marketing, and selling the mythical advantages of their 4-stroke race bikes. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t favor 2-stroke over 4-stroke. What I favor is choice, free market policy, innovation, competition, and variety. MX has been the cozy playground of the Big 4 for nearly 30 years. It is the role of the FIM/AMA to safeguard the future of motorcycling for all of us, not just for a handful a big corporations. It’s high time they gave us an environment that encourages new players to get in the game. This is an important step in the right direction.

I look forward to the new discussions that should come out of this change. For the first time in a long time we might actually get new blood into the MX marketplace. At the very least we can begin to have productive discussions about engine technology and what the future might hold. It’s great to throw off the stifling blanket of corporate market speak that has controlled our choices for decades. We can only hope the US sanctioning bodies follow the FIM’s lead.