Muddy Waters MX

Thinking differently - the future is coming whether we like it or not

terrywfrazier@gmail.com — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 02:55:24 GMT

This is only tangentially about motorcycles, and only in the sense that it points to how the world of the future will work. But it's an important insight into our future. This NYTimes editorial by Thomas Friedman (author of "The World is Flat" and "The Lexus and the Olive Tree") is about a new kind of car company called Better Place, based in Palo Alto, CA.

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.

New hybrid patent filed by KTM

terrywfrazier@gmail.com — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 03:05:04 GMT

Austrian motorcycle manufacturer KTM has filed patents for a new, 2-wheel-drive, hybrid motorcycle. Following KTM's announcement of their all-electric zero-emissions bike, which is planned for production by 2010, this hybrid features an internal combustion engine driving the rear wheel with an electric motor driving the front wheel. I don't know exactly how it works, but under braking the electric motor acts as a generator to recapture energy from the wheel and store it back in the battery.

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.

Two Stroke Militia

terrywfrazier@gmail.com — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 18:55:54 GMT

Here's another helpful and entertaining site in the two-stroke wars — Two Stroke Militia. The site was apparently put together by three guys in the northeast — Jeff Conboy, Tim Weeks, and John Nicholas — and features some of the best analysis and commentary on the two-stroke situation that I've seen. I'm happy to see that they've picked up sponsorship from quite a few companies that also love the smell of race gas and castor oil.

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.

Algal biodiesel reduces the 150 million year oil cycle to three days

terrywfrazier@gmail.com — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:00:55 GMT

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.

Long live the two-stroke Part Deux: FUD in the marketplace

terrywfrazier@gmail.com — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 18:24:26 GMT

Editor's note: You may want to read Long live the two-stroke: Part 1 and FIM to put 2-strokes on even footing in 2010 for more background.

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.

FIM to put 2-strokes on even footing in 2010

terrywfrazier@gmail.com — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 01:56:20 GMT

According to this Dec 21, 2007 press release (pdf) from the Federation Internationale de Motorcyclisme, the Permanent Bureau has decreed the following:

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.

Surface Guard Tape

terrywfrazier@gmail.com — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 22:35:26 GMT

Here's an interesting product I came across recently from ISC Racers Tape — Surface Guard Tape. According to the company it's "a bullet-proof, 8 mil clear, urethane paint protection tape. You cannot puncture this tape with a pen." It has a semi-permanent adhesive and protects against UV, extreme temperatures, and automotive solvents.

I've been using a product called Snider's Paint Guard from Aerostich to protect the paint on my Guzzi from saddlebag rubs and such. It's a clear plastic film that adheres like static film. It work pretty good, but it's hard to apply to compound curves. But it removes easily. I don't know how well the Surface Guard removes after it's been on a few weeks or months - especially if it's been in the sun a lot. But I'm going to get a roll and see. I can see how this would be really good to protect the frame from rub marks around the footpegs after you've spent a few hundred dollars for a nice powder coat job.

Long live the two-stroke

terrywfrazier@gmail.com — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 03:16:07 GMT

Michael Scott's "In The Paddock" column in the new Cycle News, (pg 60, July 2, 2008) is all about the two-stroke motorcycle engine, its past, present, and future. Some interesting stuff there. Mostly Scott talks about road racing and the death of the 250 GP class, which DORNA has killed effective 2010. But he also interviews Jan Witteveen, legendary Aprilia two-stroke engine designer and gets his views on the state of the two-stroke, plus discusses possible changes at the FIM to bring the two-stroke back to MX.

According to Scott, Witteveen recently designed an innovative two-stroke 125 for Chinese company Haojue and is "working on a project for the future of the two-stroke engine." Scott goes on to discuss the "death" of the two-stroke and, like others with whom I've spoken, lays the blame at the doorstep of Honda, who were the first of the Jap conglomerates to declare a moratorium on two-stroke production.

In fact, I've been told by one well-placed industry engineer that the entire affair at Honda has little or nothing to do with emissions, performance, or cost but rather with patents. He claims that Honda has no patentable two-stroke technology and, therefore, no way to control that segment of the industry. So they declared it a "very bad idea", Yamaha meekly followed, and voila! the two-stroke is dead.

Or is it? According to Scott the FIM is now proposing a return to two-stroke racing in MX:

Over on the mud, they've already made the switch from two-stroke to four-stroke, and now there is a significant backlash. Four-stroke racing dirt bikes are expensive to buy, and virtually impossible for an amateur mechanic to maintain. Engine blowups can be financially crippling. They also have a strictly limited service life, making them lose value rapidly. And two-strokes are lighter and more fun. In response to these problems, which afflict all but factory riders, the FIM are now proposing a switch back to an all two-stroke formula, with the plonkers actually banned.

Now don't go blaming me for the problems Scott attributes to four-bangers. I was actually told by one fellow that anyone who can read a manual can do a proper job servicing a modern four-stroke MX race motor. But then, I also know that people as well respected as Stu Peters (CMC founder) and Tim Cotter (MXSports.com and promoter of Loretta Lynn's) feel that the maintenance cost and complexity of the modern four-stroke are serious problems for the long-term health of the sport. So it's not just me, folks.

On the other hand, I'd hate to see four-strokes banned in MX, and I think that unlikely. After all, I'm sure Honda are dead serious about not making them anymore. But there should be displacement parity such that the two technologies can compete on more-or-less equal terms. Then the racers can choose. And that would be good for everyone. What we have now is an arbitrary policy imposed, essentially, by one big Jap conglomerate. It's not to the racers' benefit, it's not to the fans' benefit, it's not even to the environment's benefit. It's mostly just to Honda's benefit. And I'm getting tired of that.

Update: You may be interested in reading this article posted on July 10, 2008 which goes into more detail on this topic.

Big balls, American style. MotoCzysz C1.

terrywfrazier@gmail.com — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 23:05:51 GMT

I've been watching a two-hour documentary from Discovery Channel on MotoCzysz (pronounced moto-siz), the 100% American-made, from scratch, MotoGP machine. Yes, you read that right - one dude from Portland, OR (who isn't even an engineer) decided he could take on the world and build a world-class MotoGP prototype racing machine from scratch. It's taken him 3+ years and approximately $5 million, but he's gotten damn close. Here's a Cycle World web article from this past March, and there's a full story in the July '08 issue of Cycle World.

Of course, there's a little problem that DORNA changed the MotoGP rules last year to require 800cc bikes and the MotoCzysz C1 is a 990 like the rules required when he started, but Michael Czysz is not giving up. He recently had a breakthrough test at Las Vegas Motor Speedway and now lists among the believers several GP-caliber road racers.

Michael Czysz has taken, literally, a clean-sheet approach to building a motorcycle. He hired a couple of ex-Cosworth engineers to make his engine concept a reality - using a split cranksahft, 4-cylinder monoblock design. They have developed their own hydraulic/electronic slipper clutch, and even engineered their own suspension from scratch. The bike features a twin-shock rear and single-shock front suspension. Imagine that - no single-shock linkage rear suspension. How could that possibly work?! Starting from his garage, Michael Czysz is very close to completing a journey no one thought possible - creating a world-class MotoGP racing machine from scratch. This guy has balls the size of grapefruits.

I've written a lot here about what I perceive as the problem with American MX. I've couched my argument in terms of Production Racing, and tried to make the point that our singular focus on production racing has made us little more than slaves to four ginormous Japanese conglomerates. But I realize now that production racing is a symptom, not a cause.

The cause is a lack of balls - we don't have any. We have the fastest MX racers on earth. We have more of them than anyplace else on earth. We have the most successful MX series (Supercross) on earth. We have the most competitive outdoor MX series on earth. And yet we are all at the complete mercy of four Japanese motorcycle manufacturers and we do nothing about it.

Every year we slobber over their bold new graphics and whatever technology advancements they deign to grant us as if it were manna from Heaven. We beg and plead and grovel before them to get their support for our races. We rely almost 100% on them as the financial backbone of a sport that we own. We do whatever they want, whenever they want it. The Japanese must be laughing their asses off behind our backs.

The typical vintage guy's cop-out of "I don't care about modern bikes" doesn't wash with me. I want to know why the hell not? I'll tell you why, because there's only four of them and they might as well be fraternal quadruplets wearing red, green, yellow, and blue sweaters. And modern MX guys are so invested in the status quo anytime someone raises a complaint about the state of modern MX machinery the real argument gets completely lost.

The next time you go out to buy your new, modern MX bike, and you slap those bold new graphics of balls on your jeans where real ones ought to go I want you to think about Michael Czysz. There ought to be a place in modern MX where the Japanese don't get to make all the rules. There ought to be a place where innovation and creativity and the small operator have a fighting chance of survival. We should be ashamed of having followed the Japanese like Pavlov's dogs for 30 years. Our fathers would have been. And their fathers before them. We should be ashamed of accepting four different colors of "good enough". Good enough is for soap and deodorant and cardboard boxes full of tasteless microwave dinners. But this is America and we should not settle for "good enough" in a sport that is all about passion and emotion. The machines matter. The heart and soul that goes into them is as important as the heart and soul of the riders. We have forgotten that.

And to Michael Czysz – you are a genuine American hero. Here's hoping your dream becomes the vibrant reality it deserves.

Why has only one company successfully entered the MX market since 1985?

terrywfrazier@gmail.com — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 01:45:05 GMT

To my knowledge only one (1) company has successfully entered the motocross market since 1985 - the small Hillsdale, MI firm of Cobra Motorcycle Mfg. What did Cobra do? They brought innovation to a market the Big Four were ignoring. They met a need. They built good products - right here in the USA.

Once - in almost 30 years - has new blood successfully entered the motocross market. And they only did it in minibikes - 50cc-85cc. Ask yourself - is this really the best it can be? It's difficult to make a credible claim than an industry (any industry) is healthy and competitive when it's consisted entirely of the same five (really four) suppliers for more than 25 years. Are we really that naive? Or, like the Soma pills in Orwell's 1984, have we swallowed the company marketing sedative so long we no longer care to see reality?

A little background

Back in December I wrote an article about how production-based racing has affected the motocross world. The article got quite a few readers (it was first featured over at McCookRacing.com) and drew fire on some of the discussion groups. People came away from reading it with a lot of different opinions, but it was clear that almost no one got my main points, which are these - the single-minded, all-encompassing "production bike" mentality that has consumed two-wheel racing has had a lot of negative consequences. And we have all been so totally brainwashed with it that most of these consequences are completely invisible to us.

Production-based racing is a great thing when it is provided as an alternative to hand-crafted racing machines. But take away the incentive and motivation to build handcrafted racing machines and you have an anti-competitive, controlled marketplace that ultimately provides less choice, less innovation, and higher costs. Think about it - motocross racing is now so thoroughly dominated by four global corporations (KTM is a bit player that exists solely at the behest of the Big Four to "prove" they are not anti-competitive. Ducati remains in road racing for the same reason.) that sanctioning bodies and promoters will do almost anything to keep them happy. Does that sound like a healthy environment to you?

But it's not just that. Production-based racing stacks the deck for the factories - in an obvious, definable way. Here's a quote from Cycle News journalist Henny Ray Abrams talking about the proposed 2009 AMA road racing rules in Cycle News issue 23, June 11, 2008:

The closer racing is to production, the greater the advantage to the factories. Power isn't the issue - it's torque. The factories can produce parts that aren't available to privateers. They can also produce parts that appear similar in every way to the production unit, but are about as related as Ben Spies is to Ben & Jerry's

Road racing isn't motocross, but the parallels are clear. Setup your racing rules for the factories and pretty soon you have a self-reinforcing loop that guarantees no one new ever disrupts the big corporations' neat little world. Factories love production racing because it controls competition, not because it benefits the racers.

We are now on our fourth full generation of motocross racers who have no idea that a competitive bike can be fielded by anything less than a global mega-corporation. And they are right. It would probably cost $50-$100 million dollars to enter the market with a competitive dirt bike that could sell enough copies to meet homologation requirements and pay for its development and manufacturing costs. Even the venerable Harley-Davidson (via its Buell subsidiary) gave up after a brief flirtation with the idea.

What is reality?

Reality is that very few successful forms of motorsport are restricted solely and completely to production-based racing. Here's a quiz for you. Name a successful, well-known motorsports franchise with the following characteristics:

Requires every racer, every championship, and every discipline to race vehicles based solely on what a major manufacturer produces
Restricts their entire racing field, in every class, to the homologated machines of a handful of multi-national corporations.
Has achieved success and popularity without a single new manufacturer or constructor entering its ranks in the past 30 years.

Championship Off Road Racing (CORR)? Nope. IndyCar? Nope. F1? Nope. American LeMans? Nope. Rolex Sports Car Series? Nope. How about dirt track racing? Sprint cars? Midget cars? Nope, nope, and nope. Not even NASCAR, arguably the most successful motorsports franchise in the world - one that even has Stock Car in its name - doesn't require production racing in any of its championship classes.

But motocross (and nearly all motorcycle racing) is quite literally defined by these characteristics. Every so often an economics genius with a degree from Obvious State pipes up in a newsgroup with a comment like "Motorcycle companies are in business to make money. There's nothing new about that." I'm always amused by the attitude of such people. Defense contractors, cell phone companies, mortgage bankers, and stock brokers are also in business to make money. I wonder if they have the same laissez-faire attitude toward them? Do they blithely accept that whatever such companies do is acceptable and provides the best options for customers? Or do they think these companies do whatever they can to stave off competition and manipulate markets in their favor? So why are motorcycle companies exempt from this same healthy skepticism?

What does this mean?

I'm not arguing that big motorcycle companies are bad. They aren't. I am arguing that blindly accepting the Big 4 view of the world, and quietly rolling over for whatever they do has taken a toll. The bountiful cottage industry that existed in motorcycle racing from the 1920s through the 1970s is dead. The talented framemakers of the past have been relegated to building replicas of (production) vintage bikes (because even in vintage we can only race production bikes). Even in flat track - which is the last remaining outpost of the custom frame - the AMA tried to kill custom frames as one of its last official acts. There is no room for innovation or the small startup company that wants to do things its own way. There is only one way, the way of the Big Four. All the business, all the sales, all the development must be an offshoot of what the Big Four want to sell.

None of this is suggesting that we don't have good bikes available to us. We do. We also have lots of beer available to us on the store shelves. But did you know they are nearly all produced by the same five companies? And that soon it may be the same three companies? Yes, your local grocery's refrigerator case is filled with dozens and dozens of different, brightly-colored cans and boxes, but there are not dozens and dozens of different beers. There are a handful, with minor variations supported by different packaging and advertising campaigns. Thankfully, the beer industry doesn't have a big governing body that makes it illegal for small brewers to come up with new ideas and (eventually) get them to market. And the micro-brewery industry is pretty healthy. So why is it so hard to imagine a smaller, more creative subset of the motorcycle industry?

What can be done?

Perhaps it's time to rethink the production rule in motorcycle racing, time to let a different drummer set the beat. Not in professional racing, certainly. That horse is long gone and nothing is going to wrest professional motorcycle racing out of the hands of the Big Four anytime soon - too many people have built their empires sucking the Big Four teat while we, the motorcycle racers pay the price of extremely limited choice.

But maybe there is opportunity at a different level. Maybe there is a place - somewhere between vintage and the 450f - that a different type of motocross bike can exist. Maybe there is a market for a sport that is competitive on bikes that are lighter and less optimized for Supercross-style racing, racing that is fast and fun but a little less demanding in the death-defying category.

I have no idea, but I do know that you can have a lot of fun, and really good racing, on different technology platforms than what the multinational corporations provide. Car racers of all kinds prove it every weekend. I have some thoughts on what such a platform should strive to achieve. More on that in Part II.