random misc talk[edit]

not true, my yzf-250 revs to 13000rpm whick is the same as a 2-smoke 125. they do put the power in the ground though.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.166.224.192 (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Err no learn bout bikes be4 u go shoutin ya mouth off 4 strokes rock ( CRF 150 O YH ) don't shout! not necessarily, (insert clever mechanical arguments about stokes which i don't totally, esp modern short stroke fourstrokes vs old long stroke fourstrokes) and getting of the line has a lot to do with other factors (gearing, 'hole shot device', etc), on the other hand 125 2T is put up against 250 4T so they are competitive. 160.5.247.213 05:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Never herd of it, i presume you mean a "rut" --160.5.247.213 05:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)....Reply[reply]

To Do[edit]

some ideas for further restructuring a) rider section - there is a lengthy Ricky Carmichael article out there b) inter wiki --> German and French have lists of MXDN winers and world champs c) eventually subsection on world champs and MX in each country - starting with AMA champs in the USA --160.5.247.213 05:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


There should also be full present day rider profiles including there team and race number. Also maybe add a bio along with some other information about each rider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coreyj33 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Restructuring[edit]

This article is due for restructuring. If I can find the time, I'll take a stab at it soon. It needs to be more logically ordered; I think it needs to look something like:

1)Intro/Summary
2)Machines
2.1)Manufactures
2.2)ATVs
2.3)Sidecars
2.4)Minibikes
2)The Event
3)Freestyle
4)Youth Sport
5)Supermoto
6)Governing Bodies
7)External Links

Gregmg 14:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Altitude vs. attitude[edit]

Once a bike is airborne, there is nothing that the rider can do to increase his 'altitude', unless he sprouts wings and starts flapping them. The rider can, however, greatly affect his orientation with the earth by using one or both brakes, or by accelerating quickly. This transfers the momentum of the wheels to the bike, thereby shifting the bike and rider forward or backward. This does not make the bike go any higher. Please don't confuse these terms or this concept in this article. Gregmg 18:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links[edit]

I removed the existing external links because three were only of local interest (specific tracks) and the fourth was heavy on advertisements and short on information. I added links to three governing bodies in their place. Please see the External_links style guide for direction on what to include and what not to include in external links. Gregmg 03:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent, glowing, non-encyclopedic edits[edit]

It's great to see an increase in interest and edits to this article. It needs a lot of attention. It would be better, however, for the wording to be a little less glowing and a little more encyclopedic. If you picked up an Encyclopædia Brittanica, would you expect to see wording like "The Most spectacular part of Motorcross today .... It simply has to be seen to believed ....". The prolific use of adverbs and adjectives is something one would expect to find in a motocross magazine, and not in an encyclopedia. Gregmg 15:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jonathan Byrne and Nick Stephenson[edit]

An anonymous contributor insists on putting references to Jonathan Byrne and Nick Stephenson in this article. Google turns up zero hits on these names. I can't find anything published on them at all. Is this just vandalism? Can anyone provide any references for the contributions these two individuals are making to Freestyle Motocross? Gregmg 04:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, an anonymous contributor has once again inserted a reference to Jonathan Byrne and Nicholas Stephenson, but I still can't references for their alleged contributions to the sport. Google and other search engines still reveal zero hits for these names. If they really had such an impact on Freestyle Motocross, their names would be mentioned somewhere on the web. I've added a ((Fact)) link. Unless someone can provide some kind of reference for this, I think it's safe to assume that this is some sort of vanity reference or simply vandalism. Gregmg 15:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can't anyone find a reference for the contributions these two have made? Anything... a passing mention in a magazine or even a small town newspaper, or maybe online competition results? I keep searching Google, Yahoo, et al, but I can't find any mention of these two. If we can't find something soon, I'll remove the contested paragraph. Gregmg 03:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

as someone into motocross in most of its forms in a very big way i can say these are no bodies. mini biking isn't a big international thing with defined structure really and freestyle mini biking isn't really a big deal at all. with the current recent popularity of minibikes the development of minibike FMX being directly attributed to two Aussies is very unlikely (unless someone is going to say its on a crusty demons DVD i haven't seen or something of that ilk). the long and the short of it please delete this waffle and shameless plugging! --Pickle 20:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reference to these two made it back into the article. It appears, however, that it was accidental. I removed it yet again. I've searched many times for references to these two, but each time I come up with nothing. Gregmg 05:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ATVs[edit]

Why have ATVs disappeared ???

In the UK we categorise them as part of MX and they are "governed" as such though motorcycling bodies (rather than through the car governing body) - despite their 4 wheels. Thus ATV (to me) seam to be deserving of a place here in the same manor as Sidecarcross is covered. --Pickle 20:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At first, the inclusion of ATVs seemed a bit odd to me, but in recent years ATV motocross has become almost as notable as the two-wheeled variety. Why don't you reinstate the removed text. Gregmg 22:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Will do, its just to me MX is the overarching term for the sport which can be competed in on a variety of machines (solos, chairs, quads) Pickle 13:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some people in the MX community DO NOT consider "quads" or ATV's to be motorcycles. A rig with a sidecar is still a motorcycle, so sidecars do qualify as vehicles that can engage in "Motocross"—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:(({1))}|(({1))}]] ([[User talk:(({1))}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/(({1))}|contribs]])
Please don't allow the mistake of letting ATV'ers claim to be motocrossers, their vehicles are NOT motorcycles and the level of grace and speed of quad competion comes nowhere close to true MX.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:(({1))}|(({1))}]] ([[User talk:(({1))}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/(({1))}|contribs]])
Sorry i would call MX all things on an MX track and that includes ATVs/Quads, Sidecars and Solos - thats why they are called solos. (in the UK) similarly if they weren't motorcycles then they wouldn't be governed by the governing body - eg cars and (i imagine) dune buggies are under the car governing body (the MSA). Maybe its different stateside, but thats why IMHO the ATV/Quad section should stay in this article. Pickle 20:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On a different vain the ATV subsection is extremely US centric IMHO (from the UK side of the pond), referring to features of US quad racing, etc - it could be more generalised, with a link then to a new article, perhaps "ATV racing in the USA" ??? Pickle 20:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AMA (the American Motorcyclist Association) officially sactions what they call ATV Motocross. I couldn't find any references on the ACU (Auto-Cyclist Union, UK) website, but I did find a few references on other UK websites. I didn't research the validity of ATV Motocross in Australia, South Africa, or elsewhere. In any case, the references to ATV Motocross seemed valid and justified, so I reverted most of the recent edits that removed them.
As an ACU official i can confirm that quads are part of MX. It can be a quad only meeting or a quad class alongside solos and sidecars at a MX meeting. The British Quad championship has some standalone meetings and some meeting shared with solos (4t and U21) and Sidecars. Pickle 17:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the matter of the US centric nature of this article... I think the real problem is that much of the offending content really isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia article. It might be fine for an MX magazine, but not an encyclopedia. I'll endeavor to clean this up, and if you feel that further clarification or modifications are required, please make them. Gregmg 05:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When i get some time its a job that definitely needs doing. Pickle 17:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did you delete the ATV Motocross section completely? I think it is a bit disingenuous not to include any reference to the machines at all. After all they, too, participate in motocross events around the world, and sport ATVs far outsell motocross bikes at least in the United States (look at the numbers from the Motorcycle Industry Council). I will add it back if I can find it. If it is too much like a magazine article I will gladly revise it. Alf rules 21:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As i say furhter down this tlak page, i wasn't me! Admitdely quads (ATVs) sales on this side of the pond are no where enar as significant as they are stateside its worhty of mention. Sidecars are minimal on yourside but have a good mention here so fair's fair (and WP:worldview) Pickle 14:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The ATV section can probably be edited to be an overview of ATVs. The passage;The 2004 national ATV Motocross season was one of the most anticipated in 15 years. Suzuki announced it was going to hire Doug Gust as its motocross pilot, Honda was hiring Tim Farr as its factory racer and Yamaha was going to offer support Kory Ellis in limited fashion for the season. could be edited to say "ATV manufacturers increased their support beginning in 2004". The neophyte reader doesn't need to know which factory hired which person.Orsoni 06:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How can anybody say that quads are not motocrossers and have no speed and grace. Obviously these people have never seen a national ATV MX race such as atva or wpsa, or they have never tried handling a 350lb machine over 100ft jumps. I advise that people who post things actually look into things before making guesses.

I edited the ATV section to be an "overview" by shortening the year by year breakdown of U.S. competition results, as race winners do little to explain the sport itself. The main ATV article is available for a more detailed description.Orsoni (talk) 06:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photos[edit]

Felt like adding some photos from around wikipedia Pickle 01:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent Edits by Pympster[edit]

There were a number of things wrong with the recent edits by Pympster... I'm not really sure where to start, but in general, these edits were non-encyclopedic. Comments like "THIS IS NOT AN ADVERTISMENT" and "Posted By Pympster/Mx_125" are not what one would expect to find in an encyclopedia article and they do not conform to the various Wikipedia style guides. Comments like "despite the fact less interesting than REAL motocross" in reference to ATV motocross is highly POV and also does not conform to Wikipedia standards. Further, this is an encyclopedia article that's likely to be referenced from around the world. Thus, honorable mention of a local motocross tryout program is also not appropriate. Please review the style and policy guides before making any further edits. Gregmg 21:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article was "slashdotted" - it appeared on a large UK MX forum, Pympster is one of the members ..... Pickle 19:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Machines section[edit]

Having just finished my degree I've had some time to sit down and have a go at this;

I've re-written from scratch, incorporating only a few parts of the original section. I do need someone who understands tables to convert the class & cc relationship table into a proper table.

The 2T and 4T debate - I've tried to give it some history and background but its probable not perfect and it will still get silly remarks added to it regularly - LOL!

Again with the class explanation I've tried to balance the Europe and American perspectives of what is IMHO an American centric article

I wouldn't characterise modified bikes as "factory bikes", only bikes built by the factory for their top riders eg Dave Thorpe's 500cc Honda in the 80's. The bikes in all the world champs are merely modifications of commercial bikes and the AMA rules specifically ban non commercially available bikes. The era of HRC and others doing that sort of "factory" backed bikes is long over.

Again I've tried to tone down the direct comparison with SX, but that could be my European perspective on it, as SX is a mere minor sideline and an American preoccupation - the "outdoors" **IS** MX to us....

160.5.247.213 23:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah (the above is me too) done the table finally Pickle 17:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A bit of history on the word[edit]

It is worth mentioning according to the historicracing.com site, Jacques Ickx, the Belgian motoring journalist and historian as well as being the father of Jacky first coined the word Moto Cross. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Willirennen (talk • contribs) 17:47, 4 May 2006.

deleted ATV MX slam[edit]

I deleted the slam line "ATVs are much less physicaly demanding than Dirtbikes" because it is silly. Anyone who has watched or participated in any form of ATV off-road racing must honestly admit that wrestling a machine with significantly more weight than an off-road motorcycle is physically demanding. Whether is it more or less so than motorcycle MX depends on things like the nature of the terrain and its obstacles, the style of the rider, or the intensity of the competition. I would much rather ride my dirtbike on a high-speed single-track hogback trail or a deeply whooped-out sand track than try to wrestle an ATV over the same stuff. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ridenm (talk • contribs) 22:58, 4 May 2006.

Don't panic mate, this is regularly vandalised article with stuff like that. Pickle 11:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with pickle do to the fact that the average atv is around 400 pounds and the dirtbike is around 200 pounds p.s. i own one myself M_1 21:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

im gettin in on this one.there are wide varitys of both bikes and quads.of all weights.engine size doesnt coralate to weight,my 98 cr250r is 300 lbs,and it is very physiclly demanding,i have ridden quads enough to know they are similar,(depending on technique,if you are better at one than you are the the other of course one will seem easier)...however most of the time spent driving a quad is sitting.with the dirtbikes you are standing much more...I have never seen a bike with a sidecar rail the whoops or clear triple,shouldnt those go with the flat-tracks or superbikes? Otis66Driftwood 18:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I take it you've never seen GP Sidecar Motocross (sidecar cross) ;) Pickle 04:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
nope,is ot on youtube?that sounds cool,and dangerous,id like to check it out,but im from indiana, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otis66Driftwood (talk • contribs) 19:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Famous People[edit]

Anyone herd of "Jarred Brindal, Australia" - it was added by some anonymous Australian user (from a Telstra IP - talk:203.36.44.12). This section is by no means definitive and arguable has a modern and US centric skew. Pickle 15:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Google check says he isn't famous Pickle 00:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Renowned Motocross Rider section is becoming a list of everyone's favorite rider. While there is no doubt that former world champions belong on the list, some of the other riders have more of a regional status. Perhaps we should tackle the "to do" list and make a list of former world champions by year.Orsoni 03:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Its starting to worry me too, but I've checked all of them and none of them are just regional riders, they are all "famous" in the sense they rode with distinction in Europe (FIM World champs) or the states (AMA MX/SX) - with the exception of Steve McQueen who is famous enough..... There is scope to either a) hive this off to a new page or b) as you suggest, create a list of world champions (and probably AMA winners for sake of balance) - the French Wikipedia have beaten us to the latter - see [[23]] - a list of 125cc, 250cc, 500cc, MX1, MX2 and MX3. --Pickle 14:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This section has always bothered me. Other race article pages, like NASCAR and Indy 500 don't inlcude anything like this. I really think it should be removed entirely. Gregmg 14:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only problem is it does provide a useful way of getting at a the data Wikipedia has on famous motocrossers. Yes in its current format its very unwieldy, but it does serve a purpose - probably best to put it a new page (might help alleviate some of the vandalism). Pickle 15:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the moment, at least, I suggest we set some minimum standard and cull any entries that don't meet it. For example, if a Google search of the racer's name and the word "Motocross" yields nothing on the first page of results, they probably aren't that renowned and don't deserve special mention. Gregmg 16:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That seemed like a good screening criteria, but I haven't been able to remove any based on it. What about making this list a category, like [Category:People from Kansas City]? Gregmg 18:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're correct Gregmg. I've looked at the Formula One page and they have a List of Formula One drivers link in a sidebar. That way people would be able to add motocrossers to their heart's content with no worries as to whether they are regionally renowned or world famous. If no one objects, I'll try to create a "List of motocross riders".Orsoni 02:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
List of Grand Prix motorcycle racersI've Google tested the lot of them before - i could easily double the length of the list on current criteria (they are all famous AMA and FIM runners, except Steve McQueen). I think moving them to another page is useful and a good move ;) Pickle 20:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This may prove useful as a basis of any such article - List of Grand Prix motorcycle racers Pickle 21:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The List of Formula One drivers includes data such as championships and the years they raced. It might be a problem tracking down all that data though.
I know of most of these motocrosser , so getting some data shouldn't be to hard. Problem is, unlike F1 there are the AMA Nats (SX & MX), FIM World Champs, and various domestic champs (Aussie, UK & Canadian all worthy of mention) - i think for the moment a little sentence next to each motocrosser explain why they are noteworthy eg Stefan Everts - Belgian flag - 10 world champion (details of classes) - more data like the F1 page may be possible on the long term. Pickle 20:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've created a List of Motocross riders and have transferred all of the riders from the motocross page. I've added a link in the See Also Section and I've tagged the article as an Wikipedia:Incomplete lists so people can feel free to add information. I'll watch for any non-rider entries. If there's a conscensus, we can remove the "Renowned riders" section from the motocross article.Orsoni 12:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brilliant bit of work ;) - I've done a few edits with some stuff. As i come across some more details I'll flesh it out more. Pickle 15:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If no one objects, i would like to remove the "Renowned riders" section from the article since a List of Motocross riders now exists with a link to it in this article.Orsoni 14:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure go ahead, should cut down vandalism (or misguided edits) and help cut the page length which is producing warning notices. Pickle 18:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. Removed "Renowned riders" Section.Orsoni 08:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article Disambiguation[edit]

In my opinion, this article has grown unruly and strayed from what an article about motocross should be about. This article should just cover the bare basics of motocross. Sub-categories such as: Freestyle, mini-bike "craze" and Super-moto should be covered in articles unto themselves even though their roots are from motocross. A case can even be made that Quad-cross should be a separate article due to the inherent difference in the physics of two-wheeled vehicles to four-wheeled vehicles.Orsoni 08:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes i agree this article has grown unwieldy since the first rewrite i attempted some time ago. However from a stand back point i feel that the "motocross" article should be an umbrella to cover its various branches (ie FMX, SX, beachcross, etc) weather they are ridden by solos, sidecars or quads/ATVs or even minimotos (bit of bias on my part using the word "craze", but i don't like "fad" but can't think of an appropriate word to characterise this phenomenon). Perhaps some of the more technical detail attempting to explain the technical aspect could be hived off into a separate article. Also the event stuff is to long winded in my opinion but its hard to give a world view while avoided a revert war with newbies trying to impose their (often US) perspective. The supermoto section could be shortened further as IMHO its more a road race thing, but that could be my European perspective, as my understanding of it from an American angle would be its more a MX sport ...... ???? I've been recently working on the Motorcycle racing article and when I'm done with that I'll give this another re-write. Pickle 17:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my opinion, we should move the Freestyle, mini-bike and supermoto sections to their own articles and allow this article to concentrate on motocross. We could add their links to the "Also See" Section.Orsoni 12:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree about moving / thining down these points, especailyl supermoto, however i would argue that supercross, freestyle, minimoto (as in mini motocross), etc are all parts of the "broad church" of motocross, and should be relegated just to a "see also" status (where items such as Enduro, Hare and Hounds, and Motorcycle racing should be)
Freestyle is even more foreign to motocross than Enduros. Enduros and motocross are races. Freestyle involves no racing. Freestyle is to motocross as synchronized swimming is to freestyle. Mini motocross is a toy version of motocross and could be covered with one paragraph in the "Machines" SectionOrsoni 12:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was deeply disappointed to find you deleted the ATV motocross section completely, Orsoni. I think it is a disservice to the educational nature of Wikipedia. Please do not take it upon yourself to determine what is and what isn't motocross. That is what the discussion page is about. Alf rules 21:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I never deleted it. I only suggested that there was enough material for it to be a stand alone article. Someone else deleted it. You'd have to go through the edits to find out who deleted it. I stand by my original contention that the article is in danger of growing too large and straying in too many directions. In my opinion, if an event doesn't take place on a motocross track (ie supermotard, freestyle), it should be referenced to in the "See also" section.Orsoni 03:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wasn't me either (i hope!), motocross is for quads, chairs and solos. FMX and Supermoto could be cut down a bit but im not sure if they should jsut become a see also... Pickle 14:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History[edit]

Saying that the first motocross race occurred in 1924 is misleading since, the word motocross didn't exist in 1924. The first Scrambles event occurred in 1924. The low-land countries of Europe (the Netherlands, Belgium and northern France) then adopted the event and modified it to the form that we recognize as motocross today. I believe my original edit to be factually and historically correct. Please see link to The History of Motocross.

Also, a neophyte to the world of motorcycles would not know what "observation" means in the context of motorcycle competition. They would also have trouble distinguishing from such terms as "unit construction","swinging arms" and "monoshock suspension".

In my opinion, we should strive to tailor the article for someone who is reading about motocross for the first time.Orsoni 19:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To us in the UK scrambling is motocross, the word just got replaced. Thus it isn't misleading to us over here. There are still parts of the UK where a motocross is called scrambling. Even today in the news headlines, the general media refers to motocross / off road bikes as scramblers - the public are not aware of the name change (they are still in the 1960s mindset when the sport was a great spectator sport on terrestrial TV, which subsequently abandoned the sport into specialist obscurity). Hence i wouldn't assert that the sport on the continent is different from the UK, its just the usage of words. The link you are citing is from America where the concept is again interpreted differently due to the late advent of the sport. The article is technically correct but while it does describes Sunbeam MCC's first point to point, it doesn't describe the subsequent history of motocross in the UK, which while it was known as scrambling up the 1970s (and beyond - see above) was the exactly the same event known as motocross on the continent.
As for terminology, of course the article should be aimed at newbies. The phrase "observation" is used in the article cited, and works better to convey to newbies the concept of trials, which is still known in America as "observed trials". The technical phrases such "unit construction", "swinging arms" and "monoshock suspension" are key technological turning points in the history of motocross machine construction which launches different epochs of motocross - key distinctions that do need to be made. Obviously technical terms would need suitable expansion, but its a fine line before going off topic at a tangent when the article is generally not that specifically detailed. The main distinctions in the UK are Pre-65, Twinshock and then modern - the importance of suspension is these distinctions is key. The main division in the Pre-65 category (ie classic) is between Unit and pre Unit engine construction (although trials also has the distinction of rigid suspension). The other key distinction signifying the end of the twinshock era, was in addition to the advent of monoshock suspension was the advent of water cooled machines. It important to chart these technological changes because as the article charts, the current demise of the two stroke is a major (and contentious) change worthy of significant coverage soon. Quiet how to make the trade off between newbie friendliness and a concise article that doesn't turn into a dictionary is obviously a difficult and troubling balancing act.
Above two is me, yesterday Pickle 13:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Saying "reducing the scope for competition" of four-strokes is a nice way of saying they were rendered obsolete. I'm sorry if that wording seems harsh but it's an undeniable fact. By the 1960's, the four-strokes were rendered obsolete in top grade Grand Prix competition. The article shouldn't betray a bias to either four-strokes or two-strokes.Orsoni 12:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The explanation for the resurgence of four-strokes in the 1990's is a little wordy and convoluted which may make reader's eyes glaze over. It could be shortened with the explanation that enviromental regulations spurred manufacturers to develop enviromentally friendlier four-strokes. For instance, the reference to sound complaints could be removed as this had little bearing on the manufacturer's decision to produce four-strokes. They were driven by the economical consequences of new enviromental regulations.Orsoni 12:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
4T - On one level you are right, they did effectively become uncompetitive. BUT they did still compete in the 500cc GPs (important to Europeans, but not to the North American perspective), and they continued as a separate class with new bikes being built (by European manufactures) in many places. Eg we in the UK had the 3 classes (125, 250 & 500) and a fourstroke championship. How to phrase this correctly will be a challenge.
1990's & new 4Ts - Yes its long winded and needs editing! I'm trying to walk a fine line to explain why the new engines are here, when they are not as competitive as a 2T (on a direct cc comparison). The fact the rules were changed has irked many (when 2Ts arrived they got no special help when the displaced 4Ts). The sound issue is of considerable importance, particularly in densely populated parts of Europe (the problem was no where near as significant with 2Ts). Also the fact that snowmobile manufactures have produced "clean" 2Ts, 4Ts require more maintenance, etc has led some commentators to speculate there is deeper meaning to this (and there is no emission issue in Europe). How to treat all these issues sensitively and NPOV is a real challenge. Pickle 14:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe between 1962 and 1995, only John Banks on a four-stroke CCM challenged two-stroke supremacy around 1971 or 1972. After the CCM challenge, they virtually disappeared from Grand Prix motocross until the Japanese factories stopped competing in the open class. When I consider the "History of Motocross", I refer to the history of Grand Prix motocross racing but you are correct, a four-stroke specific class was created in Europe & North America so it does merit mentioning.Orsoni 16:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In addition to CCM's grand prix campaigns, there is also the Europeans - KTM, Husqvarna, Husaberg, etc - although the 500cc GPs were mostly but not exclusively big Japanese 2Ts Pickle 16:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I mentioned above, only after the Japanese factories abandoned the 500cc class in the 1990's (Yamaha & Suzuki had stopped manufacturing open class bikes altogether. Honda & Kawasaki stopped producing works bikes for Grand Prix competition) did the smaller European companies begin competing with four-strokes. From the early 1960s to the early 1990s, the class was dominated by two-strokes.Orsoni 17:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I used single-shock rather than monoshock in an effort to bend over backwards to make the article as newbie friendly as possible. While the term monoshock does indeed mean single-shock, it was actually Yamaha's trade name for their single-shock rear suspension.Orsoni 17:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't believe a first-time reader learning about motocross needs the minutae about why four-stroke power differs from two-stroke power in the "History" Section. The article should try to cover the barest basics so as not to drown the first-time reader with facts. Suffice to say that newer, more stringent enviromental regulations forced the manufacturers to develop new, enviromentally friendly, four-stroke technology. The current lengthy explanation should be moved to the "Machines" Section.Orsoni 23:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Europeans had been competing in the 500cc GPs, but had been winning - not sure how to incorporate this. Pickle 11:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Monoshock, may be a trade name (so is a Hoover) but it is the term generally used by everyone involved, single-shock sounds as an unusual constructed word that means little to nothing (if not wrong or out of context) if it were to be used by a newbie in conversation with a person conversant with the topic. Pickle 11:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Monoshock, may be a trade name (so is a Hoover) but it is the term generally used by everyone involved, single-shock sounds as an unusual constructed word that means little to nothing (if not wrong or out of context) if it were to be used by a newbie in conversation with a person conversant with the topic". We need to try to tailor the article for people not involved with motocross. The contention that single-shock would mean nothing to someone conversant with the topic misses that point. The article is supposed to be tailored for people not conversant with the topic. For instance: an encyclopaedia article on vaccum cleaners would use the word vaccum cleaner and not Hoover.Orsoni 18:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm you've got me there, personally i feel monoshock is the kind of word used in the literature that isn't "too" technical. The literature around MX makes the distinction of the key era of Twin Shocks, especially as a class of historic racing/sport, and key era of the advent mono/single shock suspension. I have to admit I'm too "deep" in the sport to have herd it called "single shock". Pickle 19:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course the technical details of each technological advance can be shortened if the details are covered already in the technical section. Pickle 11:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
During the 1970s and 1980s, the only four-stroke dirt bikes available were Japanese manufactured trail bikes. You are correct in that these were modified for racing. Again, I was referring to top level Grand Prix racing. There were no four-strokes competing in Grand Prix motocross after John Banks' CCM effort until Jacky Martens won the 1993 title on a Husqvarna four-stroke, and this was only after the Japanese had abandoned the open class. You are correct though in that four-strokes were used in competion in the 1970s and 1980s, just not at the Grand Prix level. Since the "History of Motocross" doesn't nescesarily mean top level Grand Prix racing, it is probably ok to note that four-strokes did compete in lesser events than Grand Prixs.Orsoni 13:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Im no total expert on the history of the GPs (if i paid more attention to the history columns by Jack Burnicle, Ralph Venables, et al i might be!) so i hope the current form on this works OK! Pickle 19:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"To us in the UK scrambling is motocross, the word just got replaced. Thus it isn't misleading to us over here". The winner of the 1924 event took 2 hours to complete the race (http://www.hickoksports.com/history/motocross.shtml) so, as you can see, that wasn't modern motocross as we know it. When the Europeans adopted the event, they shortened the course and initiated the two moto format thus, my original wording is historically accurate. I've provided two sources supporting this version.Orsoni 13:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps i wasn't clear - the first Sunbeam MCC Point to Point is a historical oddity, more akin to current hare and hounds. Subsequent events became what we now know as motocross. by whom and where these changes took place is an issue for debate (i could go round my parents and find books on this subject). but my fundamental point is that by (at the latest) the 1930s the sport known as "scrambling" (to the UK public) is/was motocross, the UK was just slow in "updating" its terminology (hell, the right honourable MP for the Rhonda is drafting a private members bill referring to motocross bikes under the title of scramblers!). I don't want to go into a great source debate but both are from the states, and all tell the same truncated short history of European motocross before enlarging upon the American perspective (which is fine for a history of US motocross from a US perspective but not a "world view"). I'm sure the back achieves of "motorcycling" and "motorcycle news" might enlighten the history, as well as copious volumes of "classic" racing magazine, and I'm sure the late Ralph Venables probably wrote a book on the subject. Pickle 19:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As per Wikipedia guidelines [24], we should stay with sourced material rather than strongly held beliefs. Your contention that the source is an American viewpoint doesn't bear out as, American viewpoints tend to favor British views rather than French views. I don't understand your reluctance to recognize any European influence on motocross. In my view, if the British had developed the two moto format, would they have tossed aside their terminology in favour of the Continental term "moto"? I hardly think ruffty-tuffty, working class, Brit bikers like the Lampkin brothers would have been too keen on adopting French terminology :) It is rather apparent that during the 1930s, Scrambles became mongrelized by European motocross influence yet, they continued to use the term Scrambles as that is what most people recognized. If you can find a printed source, you can cite it as a reference by its ISBN number. For example:
  • 50 Years Of Moto Grand Prix (1st edition). Hazelton Publishing Ltd, 1999. ISBN 1-874557-83-7
Orsoni 12:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The issue i have is that the Americans didn't join the party as such until the 1970s, so most US accounts of the history of the sport highlight the "first" MX and then go on to talk about developments in the states leading to the explosion in interest in the late 1960s, mainly 1970s. I have never read a French or other continental version of the history of MX, so i wouldn't like to say they have a different interpretation of the history of MX either. I'm not disputing that there was MX on the continent either, the first MXDN was held in 1947 in Holland. For example | here is a video (Google video, circa 80mb, 13 minutes long) of a "TV scramble" the BBC ran back in the 1960s, its motocross! The sport back then may have been called Scrambling but its the same thing as motocross, they are one and the same, interchangeable. I'm no expert on the origins of words in the English language but they've done a swap! Similarly the word "moto"; many in the UK still use the word "leg" to refer to each individual race that makes up a competition. Unfortunately i don't have any books with me here at Uni (despite its large library there are no MX books!), but at home there are shelves full of various MX and motorcycling magazines (eg [25] ) going back decades plus numerous books (several of these [26] ). The works of Ralph Venables may be helpful ([27] ) but i don't have any and I'm not sure if he ever got around to writing a history of MX (he was the most qualified person). Thus with little on me to back me up (and the UK / European MX scene not being as online as the Americans) i can only assert that a) its Scrambling rather than Scrambles, b) it would be very hard to say that it was the Europeans who took the first event (what would be called today a 2hr Hare and Hounds) and made the modern event, equally i have nothing to say it wasn't the Europeans. From an historical point of view as a historian, the first article cited [28] cites few sources. The second is better, admitting the gaps in the historiography, citing where possible, but still unable to explain the interwar history well, however it (being from the AMA museum) for a US audience still keeps that US focus. As a sport we've failed to record our history very well / if at all. As a third generation MX'er it very hard to cite and explain adequately what one already knows! As for what the Lampkin clan would have though, they weren't around (Arthur, et al) till the 1960s! Pickle 14:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion Proposal For Freestyle Section[edit]

Now that Freestyle Motocross has its own Wikipedia article, I propose the freestyle section be deleted from this article in an effort to shorten it. A link to Freestyle Motocross can be added to the See Also section. A reference can be made to the evolution of freestyle in the History section. The same can be done for the Supermoto section since it also has a stand alone article.Orsoni 06:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it might be better to shorten both sections to a paragraph or two, and refer to their own respective articles for more information. I think this would be more consistent with how this type of issue is handled in other articles. Gregmg 14:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Greg - using the ((main|article name)) tag followed by a brief summary paragraph (maybe even photo too) achieve a short and relevant summary of the article without loosing all the work to the "footnotes" by using the see also section. This is best for FMX and Supermoto, actual spin off's of motocross - conceivable Supercross could receive the same treatment. In a slightly different style most of the other major sections, such as ATV MX and Sidecarcross could be handled along these lines. Pickle 15:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I'm not saying there is no skill involved in freestyle, the only similarity it has with motocross is that they both use motocross bikes. Freestyle is to motocross as synchronized swimming is to competetive swimming. They both require athletic effort but they're completely different events. A case could be made that freestyle is as unique as trials riding yet, there is no trials section in this article. I take the literal approach to a motocross article. In my opinion, motocross is two motos on an enclosed circuit. I agree short paragraph with a reference to the main article is a proper solution. I think we should strive to make this article as an overview of the sport. The seperate sections are in danger of overflowing with needless information, such as the year by year breakdown of the U.S. ATV national championships.Orsoni 04:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How i perceive motorcycle sport (as someone very deeply involved in it) is there are 5 main sports, each with branches off it. Thats how the governing body in the UK describes it in its literature. Within the scope of Motocross, is thus SX, FMX, and beachcross. Trials, enduros, track racing and road racing are all separate, with their own branches. Thus when approaching motorcycle sport, one looks at MX first and then at its branches. Hope that makes sense!
I don't disagree that FMX has little to do with MX (in the sense its not a race) but is grounded in it, similarly, Supermoto is a strange crossover between MX and Road Race - in the states its more MX, while over here its more Road Race.
To use your example, FINA covers all water sport, or FIS with all things snow realated....
I think it's important to keep in mind what exactly we are doing here. This is an encyclopedia, after all, and someone may arrive at this article after hearing something about freestyle motocross. Placing this sport in the context of motocross racing is both best for the Wikipedia user and intellectually honest since freestyle is an offshoot of sorts of motocross racing. Gregmg 15:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That sounds reasonable. My main intent is to keep the article focused. As an encyclopedia article, it should cover the basics and not delve into minutae where articles run the danger of becoming too long and risk having the reader lose interest. For instance, does a first-time reader about motocross need to know about a controversy between Carey Hart and Mike Metzger over who completed the first backflip? As I mentioned before, I believe the ATV Section runs off the rails when it delves into a season by season breakdown of the U.S. ATV National Championship.Orsoni 05:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mxfull.com[edit]

Someone has repeatedly added a link to mxfull.com, a commercial Spanish language website. Several Wikipedians including myself have removed this each time. On the off-chance that the party responsible for adding this link might read this discussion page, here are my reasons for removing it.

- Per the External links guide, foreign language websites are appropriate to link to when they are the official website of the article's subject, or when they contain visual aids (graphs, tables, etc.) that may benefit the article. This foreign language website meets neither of these criteria.
- External links must add value to the article in question. Although my Spanish is a bit rusty, the web site in question appears to offer the same sort of MX magazine info that thousands of other websites offer. Even if it were in English, it probably wouldn't be appropriate to link to.

Gregmg 15:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Game[edit]

moto x is also a 90's computer game with a course editor. 80.139.64.254 07:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, there were several with simialr names Pickle 18:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mototown USA[edit]

The largest indoor motocross facility in the world, known as Mototown USA (Mototown USA) recently opened in 2006, in Windsor, Connecticut. The complex is over 200,000 square feet in size.

by Jacksonian3623

Recent edits by Jacksonian3623 have breached WP:3RR, although unwittingly I've breached it (and revered it) as well when i went and reversed it. I also believe the edits are Spam like. While there is scope for a "Mototown USA" article if it is notable (for we have Hawkstone Park Motocross Circuit and Cwmythig Hill). Thought, advice and comments form other editors is welcome! Thanks in advance Pickle 12:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have to agree with Pickle. This article is about the event of motocross. The fact that the largest indoor track has just opened in Connecticut doesn't belong in the section used to describe the sport of motocross. The indoor track can be mentioned in the same section as Hawkstone Park and not in the main body of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orsoni (talk • contribs) 17:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Ditto, more or less. The reference didn't seem to fit so I removed it. I'm not convinced that it belongs anywhere in this article. The only aspect of this track that appears to be notable is its size; perhaps if we could find some independent news coverage of the track discussing the significance of its size... then it might seem more appropriate to include. Gregmg 19:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cheers guys. I only read the RacerX website briefly and i don't recall it being mentioned but I'm not an avid follower of North American news. Pickle 13:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most Physically Demanding[edit]

Encylopedia Brittanica states that motocross is one of the most physically demanding sports in the world http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9053971/motocross. Is there any way we can incorporate this into the article?

Is this not ocvered in the "Physical Demands" section which cites the extensive Racer X Ill article on the subject? Pickle 00:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
nope Otis66Driftwood 18:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does anyone know what articles that information on heart rate come from? I don't doubt that their heart-rates reach 180 to 190bpm many times in a race, but to average 180-190bpm for 35 minutes? From my personal knowledge of road bicycle racing, that level of exertion is reaching their physiological limit of human potential even for the best in the world. Even to think about it logically, most grown fit men have maximum heart rates of 180 to 200 bpm and that is at maximum effort. Motocross courses don't require maximum physical effort on every part of the course. --Ryrodman1 (talk) 07:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wheres the BRO's and BRO HOES???"[edit]

What about the subculture dirtbiking has spawned in southern california? WHERES THE ARTICAL FOR THIS HUH? 71.105.181.252 04:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately i don't live in SoCal so I can't really say. Why do you be bold and write one? Pickle 12:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

To the attention of anyone who knows the engine size classes for Motocross, the categories at the beginning of the machines section have been vandalised... I removed some other vandalism, and i would change it myself but i dont know what they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minarelli (talk • contribs) 23:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I edited the article to show 50cc to 650cc. If those aren't correct, someone please re-edit.Orsoni (talk) 06:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikiproject Motorsport[edit]

I propose we add motocross to the sports covered under the Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport banner. If anyone knows how to create a template to add to the front page, please do.Orsoni (talk) 12:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ATV Editing[edit]

The ATV Section, in my opinion, is almost as long as the main ATV article. Much of it is redundant information covered in detail in the main article. If no one objects, I'll try to prune this down to the pertinent facts.Orsoni (talk) 05:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

USDA 2-stroke Ban[edit]

I removed the reference to the USDA 2-stroke ban because:

- I could find nothing to support any sort of USDA action against 2-stroke motorcycles.
- The USDA could not ban the distribution of 2-stroke motorcycles, only their use on USDA managed lands.
- Even if somehow true, this violates the world view mandate for wikipedia content.

gregmg

Semi-Protected from vandalism[edit]

I see that the 2008 Grand Prix motorcycle racing season has been semi-protected, preventing edits from non-regular contributors. As the motocross page seems to be a regular target of vandalism, would there be a concensus to do the same for this page?Orsoni (talk) 03:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would do the article some good not to be edited and vandalised, but at the same time there are some ad hoc contributors who have improved the article and if anything it would be a bit counter-productive to require them to sign up to Wikipedia to make one change (or petition the 'editors' of the article via their own Talk pages). But that's just me. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.31.172.35 (talk) 10:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lately, it seems that more than half the edits are vandalism.Orsoni (talk) 06:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does anyone else agree to semi-protecting the article? As i said, it seems as if all the recent edits are to revert from vandalism.Orsoni (talk) 07:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Motorcross Physics Help![edit]

my name is Patrick

is there anyone out who can help me regards to the Physics of MX

Im in 8th grade and I have to write a paper on the History and Physics of MX

I got the history part but I dont know how to write up the Physics part —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.61.0.254 (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Take a look at this article - Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics - which goes into the physics in great depth. Good luck with the assignment. --TimTay (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Total races in Supercross[edit]

Regarding this edit, there were a number of issues that I noticed while patrolling for vandalism (Motocross related articles get vandalized a lot). The page was broken due to incorrect Wiki markup, because it said ==notes== in the middle of a line instead of on its own line. The URL given, Transworld.net, was truncated so it was unclear what page was being referenced. Possibly the page was supposed to be http://motocross.transworld.net/1000098137/news/2011-supercross-schedule/ but that, by my count, shows 17 races, not 21. I added two citations using the ((Citation)) template, to official sources (AMA and Monster Energy). I also changed the wording, since I don't know if there are always supposed to be 17 races year in and year out. What I was able to verify was a list of 17 races in 2011 and for the forthcoming 2012 season, so it says only that. While I was there I fixed some capitalization. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What do they wear?[edit]

This article needs some information about the standard clothing worn by racers. For instance, do the outfits have features for enhanced safety?Adrigon (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed Last Sentences about ban on 2-strokes[edit]

I've removed the following sentences from the AMA Motocross Championship Section:

"Now in modern day two strokes are not allowed in AMA professional venues, such as the FIM Monster Energy supercross series. Also two strokes are not allowed in venues that are professional in the AMA national outdoor events."

It has no references and I personally could not find anything to substantiate this claim. It is common knowledge that 2 strokes are generally no longer used at the AMA level, but it is in my opinion due simply to the fact that a 450cc four stroke is faster than the 250cc two stroke (that is allowed in the same class). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewey1025 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2016[edit]

Hey I love motocross and was wondering if I could give a couple quick brief history edits! Thanks will667.

Will667 (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Will667: if you wish to edit this page you need to make specific comments as to what you would like changed. This page has been frequently vandalized and thus is not able to be edited by new users. Plus at this point you have only one article edit that was clear vandalism so there is no reason to think you have intention been constructive here. If there are edits you would like made, you can list them here and they will be made. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Motocross. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was not called Hare Scramble[edit]

The history section contains the following non-sequitur; the activity became known as "hare scrambles", said to have originated in the phrase, "a rare old scramble"

Hare is not the same as rare. The term 'hare scramble' is modern and American. In the UK it was called 'Scrambling' then later 'Motocross'Dean1954 (talk) 09:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding a Topic[edit]

I am new to editing in Wikipedia. I want to add information about Brian Deegan because he is the founding father of Freestyle Motocross. Rvpe (talk) 04:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories