Jump to content


Photo

Thoughts of Jody Weisel


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1 rd500

rd500
  • Member

  • 474 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 10 July 2012 - 09:51

a few thoughts from Jody Weisel, not intended to cause upset or WW3, but just a few thoughts from Jody Weisel.

 (1) The EPA myth: The EPA did not put the two-stroke out of business (if it did how do you account for the 2012 Yamaha YZ125, YZ250, KTM 125SX, KTM 150SX, KTM 250SX, KTM 300XC, Husqvarna TC150, TX250, TX300, TM 144MX and TM 300MX offroad machines or all the small labour engines such as outboards and chainsaws, also all the small vehicles china etc use?).
 
    (2) Four-stroke power: Four-strokes are not more powerful than two-strokes. Their horsepower and torque come from a common parlor trick called “cubic centimeters.” Four-stroke are only competitive with two-strokes because they are larger. Four-stroke engines are allowed to be as much as 100 percent larger than two-strokes.
 
(3) Four-strokes are loud. It isn’t just the decibels, it is how far the nasty little sound waves carry. A two-stroke is raspy, but it’s off as much as its on and it sound waves peter out in a hundred yards.

(4 ) Manufacturer's scheme: The motorcycle manufacturers did not manipulate the market into buying four-strokes, but they embraced it because the promise of selling more bikes was hard to resist. The essence of marketing is newness...which is why people get new cell phones every six months...even though the old one still makes phone calls. It should come as no surprise that corporate monoliths the size of Yamaha, Honda, Suzuki and Kawasaki don’t truly care what they sell as long as they are selling something (garden tractors, oil tankers, automobiles, pianos, airplane wings).
 
    (5) Four-strokes are cheaper to produce: Four-strokes are not cheaper to produce than two-strokes. Just the opposite. It costs more to produce a four-stroke engine than a two-stroke engine—a lot more (and eventually they have to charge some rube for the extra parts). The reason that they didn’t run the prices up the flag pole earlier on in the "four-stroke era" is because the new four-strokes had to be accessible. Now, with the two-stroke on the ropes, the greater production costs must be passed on to the consumer.

(6) 4 strokes rule racing, The be all and end all is the 4 stroke rules road racing and motocross because of rule changes, it didnt get there on its own the sport was changed to accommodate this engine type.

(7) and finally if you didnt know any better, 2 views for a newbie

Imagine that I told you that a motorcycle manufacturer was working on a revolutionary engine design for 2013 that was lighter, revved quicker, produced ten more horsepower (per quarter liter), had one-tenth the moving parts, was cheap to produce, cost less to maintain and could be rebuilt for a quarter of the price of your four-stroke? Would you be interested?

or

What would you say if I wanted to sell you a bike that weighed more, was 20 percent more expensive, had lots of extra moving parts, couldn’t be repaired without an ohmmeter and made less power per cubic centimeter? Interested in that bike?

:wave:

Advertisement

#2 Russell Burrows

Russell Burrows
  • Member

  • 6,281 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 10 July 2012 - 10:53

a few thoughts from Jody Weisel, not intended to cause upset or WW3, but just a few thoughts from Jody Weisel.

 (1) The EPA myth: The EPA did not put the two-stroke out of business (if it did how do you account for the 2012 Yamaha YZ125, YZ250, KTM 125SX, KTM 150SX, KTM 250SX, KTM 300XC, Husqvarna TC150, TX250, TX300, TM 144MX and TM 300MX offroad machines or all the small labour engines such as outboards and chainsaws, also all the small vehicles china etc use?).
 
    (2) Four-stroke power: Four-strokes are not more powerful than two-strokes. Their horsepower and torque come from a common parlor trick called “cubic centimeters.” Four-stroke are only competitive with two-strokes because they are larger. Four-stroke engines are allowed to be as much as 100 percent larger than two-strokes.
 
(3) Four-strokes are loud. It isn’t just the decibels, it is how far the nasty little sound waves carry. A two-stroke is raspy, but it’s off as much as its on and it sound waves peter out in a hundred yards.

(4 ) Manufacturer's scheme: The motorcycle manufacturers did not manipulate the market into buying four-strokes, but they embraced it because the promise of selling more bikes was hard to resist. The essence of marketing is newness...which is why people get new cell phones every six months...even though the old one still makes phone calls. It should come as no surprise that corporate monoliths the size of Yamaha, Honda, Suzuki and Kawasaki don’t truly care what they sell as long as they are selling something (garden tractors, oil tankers, automobiles, pianos, airplane wings).
 
    (5) Four-strokes are cheaper to produce: Four-strokes are not cheaper to produce than two-strokes. Just the opposite. It costs more to produce a four-stroke engine than a two-stroke engine—a lot more (and eventually they have to charge some rube for the extra parts). The reason that they didn’t run the prices up the flag pole earlier on in the "four-stroke era" is because the new four-strokes had to be accessible. Now, with the two-stroke on the ropes, the greater production costs must be passed on to the consumer.

(6) 4 strokes rule racing, The be all and end all is the 4 stroke rules road racing and motocross because of rule changes, it didnt get there on its own the sport was changed to accommodate this engine type.

(7) and finally if you didnt know any better, 2 views for a newbie

Imagine that I told you that a motorcycle manufacturer was working on a revolutionary engine design for 2013 that was lighter, revved quicker, produced ten more horsepower (per quarter liter), had one-tenth the moving parts, was cheap to produce, cost less to maintain and could be rebuilt for a quarter of the price of your four-stroke? Would you be interested?

or

What would you say if I wanted to sell you a bike that weighed more, was 20 percent more expensive, had lots of extra moving parts, couldn’t be repaired without an ohmmeter and made less power per cubic centimeter? Interested in that bike?

:wave:

Posted Image

#3 Sakkie

Sakkie
  • Member

  • 42 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 10 July 2012 - 11:24

Who on earth is Jody Weisel? :confused:

#4 rd500

rd500
  • Member

  • 474 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 10 July 2012 - 12:33

sakkie, i have no idea who Mr Weisel is at all and quality as always russell lol, i dont know how true this is but apparently they were making a big deal about the moto 3 bike in the british championship when someone was heard saying "great, they've made a 250 go as fast as a 12 year old 125 and it only costs 3 and a half times more"

hopefully we will hear more from Jody Weisel in the future

#5 fastfitter

fastfitter
  • Member

  • 135 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 10 July 2012 - 21:23

"great, they've made a 250 go as fast as a 12 year old 125 and it only costs 3 and a half times more"



LOL as I believe the young folk say :smoking:


#6 tonyed

tonyed
  • Member

  • 488 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 11 July 2012 - 06:14

Rather like the 'free' electricity for your 'lecky car.

Anyone, except me, noticed the large power stations littering the countryside?

http://www.motomoriniclub.nl/fast.html

How much 'progess' since the Morini?

#7 rd500

rd500
  • Member

  • 474 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 11 July 2012 - 06:57

nice article on the Moto Morini, its weird to think that most likely this machine would be considered to prototype to race with the moto 3 bikes of today.

just in case anyone's interested i have a spare copy of Take It To The Limit on dvd (the 30th anniversary edition) by peter starr, asking for 20 pounds and ill post it for free, its brand new in the wrapper. pm me
cheers ian

#8 GD66

GD66
  • Member

  • 2,196 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 11 July 2012 - 08:29

Who on earth is Jody Weisel? :confused:


He is an American journo who for years wrote a column called "Jody's Box" for Motocross Action magazine. While not everyone subscribes to his at-times sardonic views, I've always thought his heart's in the right place and like many correspondents on this site, not only misses the carefree, fun days of bike racing but also mourns the constant hammering we're all subjected to in terms of rules, political correctness, the environment etc.
If you're a dirt biker it's worth digging up some of his older stuff, very entertaining.


#9 rd500

rd500
  • Member

  • 474 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 11 July 2012 - 08:31

thanks GD, now we know

#10 Herr Wankel

Herr Wankel
  • Member

  • 885 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 12 July 2012 - 19:15

thanks GD, now we know

And the 250 OSSA single cylinder was quicker still than the Morini,but of course it doesn't count 'cos its a stroker !!

HW

#11 exclubracer

exclubracer
  • Member

  • 1,680 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 12 July 2012 - 20:39

And the 250 OSSA single cylinder was quicker still than the Morini,but of course it doesn't count 'cos its a stroker !!

HW

Spot on there Andy. :up:

Nice to see you around, :wave: where've ya been hiding? :p

#12 rd500

rd500
  • Member

  • 474 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 09 September 2012 - 18:39

Jodys thought on the way the motocross is being run, quite similar to another world championship.........

MODERN GRAND PRIX MOTOCROSS IS...

...A sport where the promoter fails to remunerate the stars of the show and instead charges them to take part.

...A sport where the only criteria for inclusion is money, and many fast riders stay home while some wealthy Novices pay to live out their fantasies.

...A sport where it is close to impossible for a GP to turn a profit without government or federation handouts.

...A sport where Giuseppe Luongo, seemingly hand-in-hand with his FIM counterpart Wolfgang Srb, acts at will without due consideration for the impact on the sport, the traditions, the riders and teams.

...A sport that bans its critics and slyly threatens those who might support them.

...A sport where the official guardians of motorcycle racing, the FIM and its president Mr. Vito Ippolito,have made no visible attempt to intervene for the good of the riders, teams, fans and sport.

...A sport that will be ruled in the same manner or worse for the next 17 years.

...A sport that is a cash cow, milked for almost every cent by one individual.



#13 Hoofhearted

Hoofhearted
  • Member

  • 100 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 15 September 2012 - 20:44

a few thoughts from Jody Weisel, not intended to cause upset or WW3, but just a few thoughts from Jody Weisel.

 (1) The EPA myth: The EPA did not put the two-stroke out of business (if it did how do you account for the 2012 Yamaha YZ125, YZ250, KTM 125SX, KTM 150SX, KTM 250SX, KTM 300XC, Husqvarna TC150, TX250, TX300, TM 144MX and TM 300MX offroad machines or all the small labour engines such as outboards and chainsaws, also all the small vehicles china etc use?).
 
    (2) Four-stroke power: Four-strokes are not more powerful than two-strokes. Their horsepower and torque come from a common parlor trick called “cubic centimeters.” Four-stroke are only competitive with two-strokes because they are larger. Four-stroke engines are allowed to be as much as 100 percent larger than two-strokes.
 
(3) Four-strokes are loud. It isn’t just the decibels, it is how far the nasty little sound waves carry. A two-stroke is raspy, but it’s off as much as its on and it sound waves peter out in a hundred yards.

(4 ) Manufacturer's scheme: The motorcycle manufacturers did not manipulate the market into buying four-strokes, but they embraced it because the promise of selling more bikes was hard to resist. The essence of marketing is newness...which is why people get new cell phones every six months...even though the old one still makes phone calls. It should come as no surprise that corporate monoliths the size of Yamaha, Honda, Suzuki and Kawasaki don’t truly care what they sell as long as they are selling something (garden tractors, oil tankers, automobiles, pianos, airplane wings).
 
    (5) Four-strokes are cheaper to produce: Four-strokes are not cheaper to produce than two-strokes. Just the opposite. It costs more to produce a four-stroke engine than a two-stroke engine—a lot more (and eventually they have to charge some rube for the extra parts). The reason that they didn’t run the prices up the flag pole earlier on in the "four-stroke era" is because the new four-strokes had to be accessible. Now, with the two-stroke on the ropes, the greater production costs must be passed on to the consumer.

(6) 4 strokes rule racing, The be all and end all is the 4 stroke rules road racing and motocross because of rule changes, it didnt get there on its own the sport was changed to accommodate this engine type.

(7) and finally if you didnt know any better, 2 views for a newbie

Imagine that I told you that a motorcycle manufacturer was working on a revolutionary engine design for 2013 that was lighter, revved quicker, produced ten more horsepower (per quarter liter), had one-tenth the moving parts, was cheap to produce, cost less to maintain and could be rebuilt for a quarter of the price of your four-stroke? Would you be interested?

or

What would you say if I wanted to sell you a bike that weighed more, was 20 percent more expensive, had lots of extra moving parts, couldn’t be repaired without an ohmmeter and made less power per cubic centimeter? Interested in that bike?

:wave:


I'm old enough to remember the BSA Bantam and the vicious power it produced. Along with the widow making Francis Barnetts and their ilk. And how they could outrun Inters.

In seriousness. Two strokes have had 50 years of developement while four strokes were ignored. Come back in 50 years and see how things have worked out.


#14 rd500

rd500
  • Member

  • 474 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 16 September 2012 - 00:29

the 4 stroke wasnt ignored, after they were out engineered in gps they even got their own world championship in the late 70s.

truth is in 10 years there has been more development done with 2 strokes in garden sheds than the factories have put into 4 strokes.

in this enforced 4 stroke era were in all thats happened is the bikes have got less powerful and are heavier than ever.

#15 GD66

GD66
  • Member

  • 2,196 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 16 September 2012 - 02:39

Heavier, at 350lb for sure, but 225hp ain't chickenfeed, Ardy. They're good for nigh on 350 km/h down through the trap at Catalunya.

Edited by GD66, 16 September 2012 - 02:40.


#16 rd500

rd500
  • Member

  • 474 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 16 September 2012 - 06:39

the 2012 honda moto gp bike is heavier and less powerful than its 2002 predecessor, the "technology" is going backwards.

never mind though next year we take the next step in the forgotten era when the moto gp is all crt derived, even bradley smith wants 2 strokes back.

answer me this though folks, if 2 strokes are no threat then why are you not allowed to race one for a national, european or world championship? why did this engine need to be banned from top flight racing?

you dont ban something unless you know the potential that design has.

its common knowledge organisers will do anything to keep us out and if we are allowed in they penalise us with a capacity disadvantage so that the inferior product can have a chance.

it doesnt make sense.

spencers v4 done 300kph on the mistral in 1984, not too shabby.

Edited by rd500, 16 September 2012 - 06:43.


#17 GD66

GD66
  • Member

  • 2,196 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 16 September 2012 - 07:23

the 2012 honda moto gp bike is heavier and less powerful than its 2002 predecessor




Please. :rolleyes: I rather doubt that.

If you're so wound up in your futile fist-shaking hatred of four-strokes, get out and get stuck into the classic racing, mate. We have two-strokes all over the place. The sound, the smell, the smoke. Get some gooseflesh !! :smoking:

#18 Rennmax

Rennmax
  • Member

  • 1,979 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 16 September 2012 - 08:05

According to the Maya calendar, next December will be the end of the world, you won't have to bother with 4 strokes after that :wave:

Edited by Rennmax, 16 September 2012 - 08:06.


#19 rd500

rd500
  • Member

  • 474 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 16 September 2012 - 08:28

according to hondas info the 2002/03 machine weighed 319lb and had between 230 and 240 bhp.

im not wound up nor have i ever said i hated 4 strokes, i just didnt accept or believe their lies as they killed the most exciting, cheap and easy to work on motorcycle power plant ever designed.

cheers GD i do enjoy the classics but the 2 strokes should still be at the very top of the sport.

Advertisement

#20 rd500

rd500
  • Member

  • 474 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 16 September 2012 - 08:31

According to the Maya calendar, next December will be the end of the world, you won't have to bother with 4 strokes after that :wave:


very true, forgot about that.

#21 GD66

GD66
  • Member

  • 2,196 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 16 September 2012 - 10:03

Bloody hell ! :eek: I better get saving up, then... :lol: instead of wasting my $$$ on race bikes.

#22 Hoofhearted

Hoofhearted
  • Member

  • 100 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 17 September 2012 - 05:05

spencers v4 done 300kph on the mistral in 1984, not too shabby.


The Moto Guzzi 500cc V8 done 280 K/m in 1957, not too shabby.


#23 rd500

rd500
  • Member

  • 474 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 17 September 2012 - 07:15

certainly quick, did Lomas not try to break many speed records with the V8? i remember reading about the Elf team doing them with Haslam.

in 2008 the 250 of Barbera being registered at over 290kph in spain.

a couple of years ago the guys at mcn tried to pull apart the 190mph speed that mick grant registered at the tt in 1977 on the KR750 by saying the bike was incapable of going more than 170mph but i would be sure at daytona etc they would have run very quick.

#24 kz71

kz71
  • Member

  • 49 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 17 September 2012 - 08:02

the 2012 honda moto gp bike is heavier and less powerful than its 2002 predecessor, the "technology" is going backwards.

never mind though next year we take the next step in the forgotten era when the moto gp is all crt derived, even bradley smith wants 2 strokes back.

answer me this though folks, if 2 strokes are no threat then why are you not allowed to race one for a national, european or world championship? why did this engine need to be banned from top flight racing?

you dont ban something unless you know the potential that design has.

its common knowledge organisers will do anything to keep us out and if we are allowed in they penalise us with a capacity disadvantage so that the inferior product can have a chance.

it doesnt make sense.

spencers v4 done 300kph on the mistral in 1984, not too shabby.



One of the biggest factors leading to the demise of the 2 stroke was that they were too cheap.
Just before I quit the GP scene, one of the YMC engineers told me that with 2 strokes they (the engineering section) could access around $10 Million max per season.
If they were using 4 strokes they could potentially multiply that by 8 times.
That scared me and I knew that was the end of racing as we had known it.
The engineers were all real keen to go where the extra money was.
Here we are 11 years on and we have racing which is now so expensive that the industry almost can't afford it's sport.
Those 2 strokes were cheap (despite what was charged) even by 2000 the basic engine tech wasn't a whole lot different to a TZ750.
Sure you had much more flashy electronics and carburetion but the big power increases came from improving the air pump.
One year we won the world championship with only 8 people working in the racing dept in Japan and that included the secretary lady.
I'll bet the Japs long for those days!

#25 rd500

rd500
  • Member

  • 474 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 17 September 2012 - 08:16

great post, thanks. :up: