Ping,
What are your thoughts on local races offering a staggering number of 30 different classes? In my opinion this spreads out the talent and results in a long program and less laps for all racers. I also believe this contributes to an "everyone wins" type mentality, where instead of having 10-15 legitimate and stacked classes, there are 30 sparsely filled classes which gives Johnny No Talents (no offense intended) a chance to "win." Of course these short motos and watered down competition do not do a good job preparing racers for regional and national championship type events with long motos. I don't want to pick on the state of Arizona, but considering the weather and population it does not seem like a decent amount of motocross talent is bred here. I mean no disrespect to Arizona riders who have made it to the pro level, but it seems there should be more. Also, our local promoter is providing free practice and race fees to top series finishers. Doesn't this create an uneven playing field that favors the haves vs. the have-nots? I know there is no such thing as a level playing field in motorsports, but I feel amateur racers should be charged the same for practice and racing to help level the field.
-Bitter Bryan in Buckeye
Brian,
At least you've given yourself an appropriate nickname, Brian. Before we get started I think it's poignant to point out that I am, in fact, a product of the Arizona racing scene. I moved there when I was 11 and finished high school in Scottsdale. Chris Blose, Jimmy Button, Jimmy Gaddis, Shaun Kalos, and old-timey Factory Kawasaki rider Chappy Blose all cut their teeth at Canyon Raceway and the now-defunct Thrasherland and Firebird Raceway. Even World Champion Bobby Moore split his time between Southern California and Arizona. I don't know how many pro riders you expect the state to turn out, but that seems better than some states. Why aren't there more? I'd wager it's due to the fact you can't ride past ten o'clock in the morning during any of the summer months without risking heat stroke. Just a guess.
Let's sort through your other issue: Yes, I think having thirty classes is too many. If the promoters are going to create classes for every single age group and skill level they should at least run them all from the same gate and just score them separately. That would allow for longer motos and better racing. You need to consider this though: Not everybody wants to race national championship events. Some folks, and I know this is hard for you to grasp, are content to compete locally and just have fun with it. Free practice to the top finishers in the series? That's his way of getting all the riders to show up for every round. He loses some money for the practice night but he gets them to all the races; it's just business, Brian—don't get all worked up over it. And the fact that you are bothered by it means you didn't win the series and you are still paying to practice. Instead of complaining, try this: work harder. Quit acting like a little b!$ch and get yourself some free practice. Good luck and stay hydrated.
PING
What's up Ping?
As an avid rider, and a fairly large one (6'2", 200+lbs) I can't help but notice the distinct power to weight ratio, and center of gravity advantage some of the smaller riders are able to capitalize on while I struggle to make my bike follow the same path these smaller guys use. While I'm able to do it for some laps the work load can become quite a bit. My question is how do you feel about a "rider and bike" weight limit? I know now the bikes have to weigh at least 220lbs, but a 140lbs Baggett (360lbs total+-) has a slight advantage over the 185lb Peick (405lbs+-). Surely that extra 40 lbs would alter a Baggett or Villipoto advantage. And they would still have a more compact center of gravity since us 6' guys can't shrink. Thanks for you time Ping!!!!
P.S. I'm sure you can do the math on the weights but I figured I would spare the readers some complex algebra since they usually seem a bit dim!
Thanks
Trey Parker
Trey,
It's an interesting concept, but as a guy who has been teased his whole life about being short I'm not really sympathizing here. Let's just get real for a minute: I should have raced MotoGP or horses, and you should have played basketball or painted murals on ceilings. And yet, here we are, loving this dirt bike life. Well, those of us with no legs sweat bullets when we have to put our foot down on the wrong side of an off-camber or go through whoops and you overgrown, corn-fed types feel like you have your knees up around your ears when you go through a tight turn or a deep rut. That's the way it is. Mike Bell made it work. Ron Lechien is a big dude. Travis Pastrana, David Vuillemin, and Kevin Windham were all bigger and they did okay. Likewise, Jeff Ward is shorter than I am, Mark Barnett was as wide as he was tall, and little Ricky Carmichael had to shave his seat down to bare plastic to even reach the pegs, but they all made it happen. That’s something I love about motocross and the main reason I'm going to tell you to stop whining about weight ratios and strap on your running shoes. By your weight description of "200-plus" I'm guessing you could stand to eat less pizza and do a little more cardio. Make it happen; you won't believe how much lighter you'll feel with ten lbs. of fat gone. And don't insult the fine readers of this column! That's my job.
PING
Hey David
I enjoy your column every week. Your knowledge, wit and humor is hilarious. Two questions for you: 1) being a 53 yr old ex motocrosser from the 70s (which was an awesome time to be racing) why do all the full face helmets have a visor that points up to Mars? What happened to the flowing lines of JT Racings ALS helmets? Weird looking. Question 2) why doesn't the AMA require all racers to wear shoulder protection? The number of broken collarbones, busted shoulders are endless. Who cares if it's not comfortable! When you crash, and you will, I would assume you would want as much protection as possible, especially if I was paying a rider. Am I just old or am I missing something
Todd
Todd,
Yes, if you were racing in the 1970s you are old. And you're also missing something: A full head of hair and 20/20 vision would be my first and second guesses. No, I'm just busting your balls, Todd. Your very old and saggy… well, never mind—let's get to your questions. I think visors have gotten longer over the years, particularly from the rounded snap-on visors that came on the original Bell Moto series helmets. Even the visors on JT's iconic lids were pretty short. As well, the porthole for the goggles has gotten deeper, which is safer because it means a thicker helmet, but it also restricts vision. Because of those things I am guessing the visors just started moving up to offer a larger field of vision. That's just my take on it though, and if anybody has something else I'd be interested to read about it in the comments.
Regarding your second question, I think all sanctioning bodies struggle with some mandatory safety gear. It's easy to say that you have to have a helmet and goggles in order to race. They've even made the hats-off device a standard in the event of a spinal cord injury. But to force someone into a neck brace or even chest protector might leave you open to litigation if they can prove that a crash was caused by the protective gear impeding their riding. Hey, you've gotta remember we live in the Sue S of A, where everybody's knee-jerk reaction is to lawyer up and pounce. I've mentioned before that Troy Lee actually required some form of under protection for all of his riders or else they would be fined. I'm not sure if he is sticking to that still, but I thought it was genius and I wish it would have caught on with more team owners. Thanks for writing in, Todd. Keep that visor down and the throttle twisted.
PING
Have a question for Ping? Send it to Ping@racerxonline.com.