Sparkplug 42

Well, it seems that everything is back to normal in the Amp'd Mobile Supercross Circus. Now that the AMA and the FIM seem to be in a rule-changing frame of mind, I thought this would be a good time to open up the 2006 AMA Pro Racing Motocross/Supercross rulebook and see if there are any other curious regulations that might benefit from some closer scrutiny. Here are the first two that stood out to me:

1. Supercharging and turbocharging are prohibited
2. Only single-cylinder engines are permitted.

So THAT'S why I can't get a turbocharged, V-twin CR450F! It's right there in the rulebook. It's 2006 and my motocross racing and dirtbike riding pleasure has been artificially limited by mere words on a page, and for what reason? The AMA defends the single-cylinder rule in a bulletin dated 12/5/05, stating “This restriction would help preserve a sensible cost of equipment and keep practical maintenance at a tolerable level.” [read all you want at the AMA Pro Racing website]

Can you imagine AMA Pro Racing trying to institute a rule like this now in Dirt Track racing [Why imagine? Go look it up... I didn't.)? Harley Davidson would kick their collective asses. Why are “sensible cost” and “practical maintenance” rule-making considerations in Motocross/Supercross, but not, say, Hillclimbing? Or better yet, AMA/ProStar Drag Racing? Do you think multi-time Top Fuel Champion Larry “Spiderman” McBride, a man whose four-cylinder, supercharged, 1500 horsepower bike can get to 244 mph in a quarter-mile, is particulary concerned with preserving a “sensible cost of equipment”? This rule seems so arbitrary that it makes one question the veracity of its stated intent.

With regards to pressurized fuel induction, the rulebook doesn't give any reason for its exclusion. But can you imagine what a turbo'd 250F would be like? More power than a 450F, and almost as light as a 125! It would be awesome! Not “Spiderman” awesome, but pretty dang cool. What I'd like to see is a return to the smaller displacements with many cylinders, like a 6 cylinder 125CC fourstroke. Low emissions, high power.

Here's another questionable rule:

3. All motorcycles must be driven by rear wheel transmitted power only.

The AMA defends this ruling in the same bulletin, stating “Emerging technology involving front wheel drive could be detrimental to the balance of competition in MX/SX (my emphasis). Moreover, such equipment would dramatically increase the cost of racing.”

There's that concern about the cost of racing again. Why is that such a big deal for MX/SX and no other form of motorcycle sport? It's like we're the poor cousins of the motorcycle world. But of even more concern to me is that dangerous statement about the “balance of competition.” Every motorsport sanctioning body in the world has at one time cut off its nose to spite its face by implementing rule penalties to reduce tecnological domination by one or more parties... when will they learn that stifling innovation is not the way? I could be wrong, but I believe Yamaha is currently the only player with a viable two-wheel drive bike, and at first glance, it doesn't seem like the technology would have any benefit in MX/SX. But I have talked to a guy who actually owns one of the very few two-wheel drive WR450s in the United States and he swears it's a revolution waiting to be unleashed. According to him, it corners better than a standard, rear-drive-only motorcycle. Why is the AMA stopping us from buying and racing a two-wheel drive bike? Or more to the point, why is the AMA stopping Yamaha from marketing an existing bike here in America? Yamaha may have Chad Reed, but the race wins have been few and far between. Is the AMA concerned that letting Reed campaign a 2WD YZ450 would result in sudden, unbalanced domination by the Blue Brand? Really?

Making innovation illegal in AMA Motocross/Supercross racing just doesn't make sense in my mind. Where else should motorcyle companies test new ideas and products, if not in championship events contested by the best motorcycle racers in the world?

Moving on, here's another set of strange mechanical rules:

4. A maximum of six gearbox speeds will be allowed.

Again, the reason for this would be... what? Is seven an unlucky number for transmissions? Will an extra cog make racing too expensive? Give me a break.

5. All footrests must fold at a 45 degree angle.

Now we're getting into that never-never land of arbitrary limits, measures and rations. Do the tech inspectors actually break out the protractors and measure “footrest” folding angles? If Carmichael's bike was found to have pegs that folded at 46 degrees, would he lose 25 points again? Or is this just one of those rules from the early '70s that never got excised from the rulebook? Well, AMA Pro Racing guys, you started the cleanup, you might as well finish it and do a good job, don't you think?

How about this one:

6. Paddle (continuous radial rib) tires and tires with lugs having a height of over 0.750” are prohibited.

This couldn't possibly be the same law instituted back in the “Jammin'” Jimmy Weinert days, can it? Someone say it ain't so! And I guess the same tech guys who measure footpeg angle take the knobby height measurements as well. I can definitely see how a tire with 0.752” lugs would be a decided performance advantage... probably cost more, too (just joking, to see if you're still paying attention).

What I don't understand is how AMA Pro Racing enforces certain rules because they say they're worried about the cost of racing, and at the same time all of the top teams use special, high-cost, limited use tires and they change them after every moto and practice session. THAT can't be cheap... so why is it legal?

Here's another dinosaur that needs to be put out of its misery:

7. Electronic transmitting of information, including radio communications, to or from a moving motorcycle is prohibited with the following exceptions:
a. AMA Pro Racing transponders utilized for scoring purposes (mandatory equipment assigned by AMA Pro Racing).
b. Data or video transmitted for the sole use of the AMA Pro Racing approved event television production (mandatory equipment assigned by AMA Pro Racing).
c. Automatic lap timing devices.

Hey, welcome to the 21st Century, AMA Pro Racing! Listen, if radio communications are safe enough for guys driving cars in 200mph circles, it's safe enough for 20mph supercross laps. And you're missing out on an entirely new revenue stream by not marketing pit radio scanners to the fans. With regards to other types of data transmissions (telemetry, video, etc.), I don't understand why the OEMs aren't up in arms about this. The data they could capture in a racing situations would surely prove to be invaluable to their R & D efforts.

How about this one:

8. Riders may only enter one class at Supercross (no double classing). [the same rule is repeated for Motocross]

Why you dirty double-classer! What is the point of this rule? I don't get it, if a rider is strong enough to qualify for both classes, why not let him or her do it? Is it because it makes racing more expensive? Is it because it will affect the balance of competition? Why is this rule still on the books?

And here's a rule that's NEVER enforced:

9. Persons under 16 years of age are not allowed in pits, grid, signal area or other restricted areas.

How is it possible that this rule even remain in the rulebook? This single rule unfortunately suggests that the AMA Pro Racing officials HAVE NO IDEA WHAT'S IN THEIR OWN RULEBOOK. If you have ever been to a supercross in the past, I don't know, ten years, you know they let kids in the pits.

And finally, here's a rule that makes sense, but has been selectively enforced at best:

10. Unless directed to do so by the Race Manager or his designee, no one at any time will be permitted to ride a motorcycle in the wrong direction on the track.

At the rainfest that was Anaheim I in 2005, Rick Carmichael plainly rode his bike backwards on the track for about 20 yards, in order to get turned around after falling in a horribly muddy bowl turn. I know this for a fact because I was seated less than 100 feet away... in the middle of a downpour! Carmichael ended up getting 3rd place points that night. If he were penalized points for that obvious rule violation, there is a chance that Chad Reed would be the 2005 Supercross Champion. Maybe that's a bit of an overstatement, but the fact that this particular rule is rarely or selectively enforced is true. It doesn't happen often, but it has happened.

In closing, I suggest all of the above-mentioned rules be carefully scrutinized and jettisoned if they are no longer appropriate (this process shouldn't take long). I also strongly suggest that the entire philosphy of rulemaking for the sport change completely. Rules set in place to make racing “more affordable” need to be stricken entirely. Rules made to affect the “balance of competition” should be cautiously applied, if at all, and never written so as to restrict or hamper innovation in anyway. And rules written to ensure the safety of the participants of our great sport should be rigorously and consistently enforced. Otherwise, what's the point of even having a sanctioning body oversee a professional sporting series, if its own rulebook cannot be respected?

Besides, I really REALLY think a 210-pound, 65 hp, supercharged V-four 250F with electric start and 2wd would look good in my garage.