An unconventional look at the world of moto header image 1

Got my RXR Protect body armor today

October 5th, 2007 · Reviews, Safety, Technology

rxrlogoGot my RXR Protect Organic chest protector today. Thanks to Chris Favro of RXR Protect North America for fixing me up with a sweet deal so I can test this with the new Leatt Brace. After talking with Chris we determined that the best path forward was to just get one and see how it worked. The RXR is not designed specifically for the Leatt, and some riders have liked it, others not. I promised Chris I’d test them together and share my findings with the VMX community via this website and Unfortunately, it looks like that’s going to be a little ways down the road, as work and travel are making it almost impossible to get any saddle time and it will be hectic until the Holidays. But hopefully I can get in a little riding before then.


Comments Off on Got my RXR Protect body armor todayTags: ··

Protect yourself – vintage racing and the Leatt brace

October 1st, 2007 · Reviews, Safety, Technology

red-cross-flagToday I ordered some modern protective equipment – a neck brace and a couple of different chest/body armour units to try with it. The neck brace I bought is the Leatt, the new and somewhat controversial HANS-style device invented and patented by South African Dr. Jeff Leatt. For core protection I ordered an EVS Revolution 5 that is designed for the Leatt, and an RXR Protect Organic.

First released about a year ago, the Leatt has gotten a lot of publicity and raised a lot of arguments both for and against its use. Former riders such as David Bailey and Danny Chandler have spoken out strongly in favor of the brace. As far as I know there haven’t been any riders speak out strongly against it, but it certainly hasn’t been adopted by riders everywhere, for a variety of reasons.

The most common argument against the device is the absence of substantial field-level proof that it actually works as claimed. Such arguments are inherent in any new equipment of this type and will be resolved over time – either favoring or discrediting the Leatt. In the meantime there are a number of riders who feel the unknowns about the device make it not worth the cost, inconvenience, or restriction in range of motion.

But for me it seems to be the right choice to try one. From what I read of the riders who use the Leatt it takes a little getting used to but soon fades from your perception as a rider, blending into the background such that you hardly notice it. This has certainly been the case with the Asterisk Cell knee braces I use. Once laced up and seated on the bike they all but disappear from my consciousness. If the Leatt provides even a modicum of protection against Spinal Cord Injury (SCI), and I suspect it provides more than that based on my reading of the design and research papers, while tasking me no more than my knee braces I will be a very happy camper.

But before making this decision I had to resolve a couple of vintage issues in my mind. Vintage racing is fun, and one of the enjoyable aspects of the hobby is reliving the atmosphere and environment from “back in the day.” For me that meant wearing vintage leather Hi-Point boots, an open-face helmet, old hockey-style shoulder pads, and other early-‘70s era gear. That was part of the fun. But the reality is we’re still racing motorcycles, and we still fall off. While I’m a pretty conservative and thoughtful rider – taking care to stay within my limits and keep my head on straight – there are still times in each race where things can go wrong. And I had to ask myself, “What’s more important – having the look and feel of the ‘70s in my outfit, or taking advantage of the vastly improved technology we have today to minimize my chance of serious injury?”

Giving up the vintage look is not a small matter. It’s not the same to be out on the starting gate with a bunch of ‘74 MX bikes and guys in rugby shirts when you’re decked out in the latest techno-garb. But then again, my goal is to keep riding as long and as healthily as possible, not pose for the best pictures. And then there is the “macho” factor – is all that protective gear really necessary? Anyone who’s ever suffered an SCI will tell you yes. Hell yes. Wear the gear. Get the brace, Whatever. Just take as many steps as you reasonably can to prevent SCIs. We all know riding and racing motorcycles is riskier than babysitting, washing the car, or playing basketball. We all know it’s more dangerous than watching football on TV. But that doesn’t mean we blithely accept the idea of debilitating injury. Bumps, bruises, and even the occasional fracture are part of the game – especially as we get older. But we’ve still got to go to work and make a living. Wheelchairs are not part of the long-term plan.

I’m guessing there’s not a single motorcycle-related cervical SCI victim today who wouldn’t go back in time and wear a device like the Leatt – proven or not – if they could do so before their accident. Life with an SCI is miserable. Life with a cervical SCI can be worse than death. So I will try to accommodate the vintage fashion police by keeping my helmet white, my pants and jersey plain and unadorned by modern graphics. I’ll keep most of my specialized protective gear under my clothes. But my boots will be modern and among the best our modern technology can provide. My helmet will be a new full-face model with modern features. And my neck will be surrounded by the best device that modern medical research and development has yet devised.

I can still get hurt. I can still suffer an SCI. Hell, I came really close 10 years ago when I broke three vertebrae in my lower back by rolling a pickup truck at 50 MPH – a far worse injury than I ever suffered on a motorcycle. Nothing is perfect. But I’ll feel better knowing I’ve stacked the odds a little bit in my favor. And I suspect my subconscious will let me ride a little freer, a little looser, have a bit more fun. And that’s what this is all about anyway.

→ 1 CommentTags: ·

The riders are the problem

September 21st, 2007 · Politics of Riding, Racing

After my brief appearance on PitPass Radio I got a nice follow-up e-mail from the crew – Scott Casber, Tony Wenck, and Ed Kuhlenkamp. I forgot to mention Ed in my earlier post about the show. He is president of BUILD-MOMENTUM High-Performance Marketing and serves as a third co-host on the show, usually calling in from his home in North Carolina. Ed’s got a pretty high-powered background in marketing and business development, and his company is doing some very good work helping motorcycle sports companies. Scott is a radio and media guy that likes bikes. And Tony is a racer, race promoter, and race team manager. All three are pretty visionary guys.

We exchanged a few more e-mails regarding my thoughts on the AMA, mostly because Ed and Tony hold different views than I do on the state of the AMA, the source of its trouble, and what needs to happen to fix it. Over the course of our discussions several points came up that I think are likely indicative of the way the motorcycle industry views the AMA and motorcycle riders (who are, in fact, the industry’s customers.) But here’s one that really stuck out:

The lack of support for the AMA is the most glaring issue with the motorcycle community and the problem resides with the riders, not the AMA.

This just can’t be right. The problem cannot be the riders. If a business (and the AMA is a business) is in trouble then there are only two broad reasons (excluding uncontrollables such as natural disaster and government intervention):

  • Mismanagement (corruption, bad product, bad marketing, etc.)
  • Failing to serve customers (which actually rolls back to mismanagement.)

If riders do not support the AMA in sufficient numbers it is because the AMA is not offering a product or products that are sufficient to gain their support. Period. Blaming the customers is dumb.

The Recording Industry Association of America (the association of music companies that want to sell you separate CDs to use in your car, home, iPod, etc) has become infamous for blaming its customers – going so far as to sue huge numbers of them – as it kicks and screams its way to a slow, agonizing, well-deserved, and long overdue death. This has been a remarkably unsuccessful strategy for the music industry. Their sales continue to plummet, their customers continue to disregard their wishes, and now their biggest channel partners are kicking them in the ass telling them it’s time to move on and do what the customers want.

Which brings us back to the AMA. My earlier post Effects of Motorcycle Industry Consolidation on the AMA says:

Like it or not it’s all about the money. The AMA cannot represent the riders and the motorcycle industry at the same time because we, the riders, are not equal to the industry. Our interests and needs are not going to align perfectly with the industry. And we are stupid if we think our paltry membership (250,000 members is about $10 million in dues) is going to get us equal footing in a conflict.

The idea that the riders are somehow at fault for the AMA’s troubles says a lot about how the industry sees us, and how it sees the AMA. In AMA Motocross is Not NASCAR I noted how the AMA History page informs us that the association grew out of the Motorcycle and Allied Trades Association early in the 20th Century and how even today the association’s structure is split between the two groups – riders and industry. Yet the two groups are not equally represented.

In short, if the motorcycle industry views its customers as the problem, and the AMA’s trouble as a sign that the customers are just not cooperating, then we should all run as fast as we can away from the AMA.

I’m excited by Rob Dingman’s big announcement. It represents a possibility for real change. But not nearly enough. From a rider’s perspective the AMA is seriously flawed in both its structure and its approach. I’m not aware of any consumer/customer advocate organization that has half its board made up of the industry that serves those same consumers, nor any that gives every corporate member a vote at meetings while limiting its customer congress to making non-binding recommendations.

In short, the AMA is seriously screwed up as a riders’ organization and a lot will have to change before I can throw my support behind them.

Comments Off on The riders are the problemTags: ·

The AMA thinks it should get out of racing

September 15th, 2007 · Politics of Riding, Racing

Wow! Really big news this week. AMA president Rob Dingman has announced plans for the AMA to stop promoting professional racing.

PICKERINGTON, Ohio (September 14, 2007) – The American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) has announced that it is embarking on an ambitious new plan to fundamentally change the way it conducts business. Specifically, the AMA is getting out of the racing series promotions business and will begin seeking series promoters for each of its professional and amateur racing disciplines.

In making the announcement, AMA President/CEO Rob Dingman, said the organization must ultimately define the distinction between the traditional roles of a sanctioning organization and that of a series promoter. “It is clear to the senior management of the AMA that we must change the way we handle the business of racing,” said Dingman. “Unfortunately the AMA’s role has become blurred and this lack of clarity has led to an erosion of confidence in the organization. The primary objectives of this new initiative are to improve AMA Championship Racing overall and realign the company so it can be successful in its historic mission of serving the needs of motorcyclists by pursuing, promoting and protecting the future of motorcycling.” [More…]

It’s hard to read exactly what this means. I’m not sure even Dingman knows just yet. A lot depends on how the AMA defines “promotion” vs “sanctioning”. I’m not at all convinced the AMA should even be a sanctioning body. But I’m prepared to listen to what he has in mind. It’s clear I’m not the only one who thinks the AMA is ill suited for a professional motorsports business.

There are some things the AMA could be doing as a sanctioning body – safety research, track owner education, etc. It all depends on how they spend their limited resources. But one thing I do know. They’re going to have to make some significant changes and prove they’re serious about this before the grassroots riders take them seriously. I’m eager to see what happens.

Comments Off on The AMA thinks it should get out of racingTags:

AMA motocross is not NASCAR

August 28th, 2007 · Industry, Politics of Riding, Racing

amavsnascarI frequently make reference to NASCAR when discussing MX/SX racing, MX/SX governance, and the general business of motorsports. And just as frequently someone rolls their eyes and remarks “Motocross is not NASCAR.”

Yep. I got that. You see, it’s pretty obvious. After the NFL, NASCAR may be the most popular sports business in the US. It’s inarguably the most popular motorsport. MX/SX is not. NASCAR enjoys legendary, life-long fan loyalty. MX/SX does not. Despite the fact that NASCAR’s growth rate is slowing, NASCAR events can still draw anywhere from 90,000 to 240,000 attendees. MX/SX, well, you know.

I definitely get it. The question is, do you? Do you think there might be a reason the Greatest Of All Time is leaving MX/SX to try and get into NASCAR? Do you understand that there just might be some valuable lessons to learn by studying a motorsports organization as effective as NASCAR? Do you grasp the fact that MX/SX, while definitely unique in content, may not be unique as a business? In fact, it just might have more in common with NASCAR, F1, CART, etc. than we’d like to admit. And maybe, just maybe if we ran MX/SX more like a dedicated motorsports business we’d be able to solve some of the issues that seem to plague the sport.

So maybe we should stop being pissy and actually take a careful look at what NASCAR, F1, etc. do well and see if we can learn something about how to make our own sport better. Keep in mind that NASCAR, as a private corporation, doesn’t publish much info about its internal structure and operations so what follows is based on my own observations over the years and what I can find on web sites. You’re welcome to send in corrections and clarifications.

One Leader, One Mission

One key characteristic is structure. NASCAR is not a committee. It’s a corporation and it’s run by one man, just like any other major corporation. For years it was Big Bill France. France was bigger than life and made all the decisions. In 1972 he passed the torch to his son Bill France Jr. who oversaw the organization’s phenomenal growth through the ‘80s and ‘90s. The following is from wikipedia but it’s pretty accurate from what I remember:

After serving as vice-president for six years, he became the head of NASCAR when his father Bill France, Sr. retired on January 10, 1972. [2] The International Motorsports Hall of Fame describes the transition: “Other than the founding of NASCAR itself, Bill Jr.’s appointment to leadership is probably the most significant event in the history of the sanctioning body.” [4] NASCAR went from a Southern regional sport to a national sport during his tenure. [4]

(By the way, according to wikipedia Bill Jr rode off-road motorcycles and competed in enduros in the ‘60s, going so far as to enter the Baja 1000 on a bike in the early ‘70s. I don’t have any validation for this point.) F1, arguably the second most successful motorsports franchise, has Bernie Ecclestone in a similar capacity.

Another characteristic is simplicity of mission. NASCAR has three racing divisions – Nextel Cup, Busch Grand National, and Craftsman Truck. They also encourage participating teams and tracks to provide support, via driver participation, promotion, etc. for lower levels of racing such as ARCA and dirt track events. But whatever NASCAR does, it is designed to capture fans, grow the sport, and increase revenues from racing. There is no distraction. NASCAR does not have a government relations committee to fight seat belt laws. It does not run museums to preserve the history of the automobile – NASCAR race cars and drivers, yes. But not the automobile. And while NASCAR creates fan events and promotions away from the track they are all single-mindedly directed at getting people to the races. There are no generic road rallys and car shows.

Having said that, the France family controls a number race tracks, including Daytona International Speedway and Talledega Speedway, via their controlling interest in International Speedway Corporation. But pretty much everything NASCAR and the France family does is focused directly on the growth, operation, and improvement of racing.

One mission, one leader, no competing priorities. If we look at other successful motorsports organizations we can see that the successful ones share the singleness of mission characteristic. The single, iconoclastic leader appears to be both blessing and curse. Tony George has, arguably, been the downfall of the IRL. But I can’t find any example where running a racing organization by committee led to lots of success.

All business, no politics

Another interesting characteristic is revenue. NASCAR doesn’t sell memberships or seek out corporate donations. Corporate sponsorships, yes. But not donations. NASCAR sells a talent-based product – racing – to a mass market audience. This hasn’t always been the case, but it is now. That’s the way it works in F1, CART, IRL, and pretty much all the big car series, too.

The major auto manufacturers don’t have a seat at the voting table when NASCAR makes policy decisions. Oh, they vote with their dollars. But they vote in a very different way. NASCAR’s job is to find the right mix of audience and exposure to make sure the auto makers want their name associated with the sport. But NASCAR doesn’t worry much about what the automakers think about their policy decisions. And they don’t worry about whether or not their racing program results in direct sales of cars by the Big 3 (and now Toyota.)

NASCAR has also really come to terms with the idea that the drivers are talent, and it treats the drivers in that way. Driver accessibility for the fans is phenomenal. Driver protection is also big on NASCAR’s list, as a talent-based business can’t survive if the talent winds up in hospitals all the time.

And now, the world of AMA MX/SX

So how does all this stack up against MX/SX as run by the AMA? First, I admit that we cannot compare MX/SX to today’s NASCAR in some key categories. The size of the sports makes a big difference in the way corporate relationships, sponsorships, TV deals, and revenue are managed. But NASCAR has not always been the 900–lb gorilla of motorsports. 35 years ago NASCAR was at best a regional attraction with about the same TV coverage as motocross. We’d see the Daytona 500 and a couple of other key races a year, just like we’d see the USGP on Wide World of Sports. In fact, in the heyday of the Continental Motosport Club and Trans-AMA motocross may have actually had more active participants and total fans than NASCAR. But that sure isn’t the case anymore, and it’s perfectly reasonable to ask what happened.

Quite a bit has been written about the AMA’s entry into motocross, the competition with the CMC, and some of the conflicts in the early days of the sport. I don’t want to rehash history and debate motivations about why the AMA got into motocross. The reality is that the AMA did assert control over the sport by the mid-‘70s and has retained it ever since. So for better or worse, whatever motocross has (or has not) become in the past 30+ years has to be laid at the feet of the AMA. And motocross, which is at least as exciting as stock car racing, has clearly not become as big as NASCAR.

So what’s the difference? Well, the AMA is run by committee. They have a president but it’s not the same as a for-profit CEO. The typical non-profit is subject to a lot more restraint and the Directors are lot more active. That’s intended to provide consensus and representation and “fairness” because non-profits don’t have the same success metrics as for-profit enterprises. The primary decisions of the AMA are made by a committee of 12 Directors, 6 member-elected and 6 corporate. (Source: AMA Code of Regulations.) Ever try to get 12 people to agree on anything? Right.

NASCAR’s mission is to run races and make money. The AMA’s mission is, ostensibly, to “pursue, promote, and protect the future of motorcycling.” NASCAR doesn’t have a slogan. You couldn’t hear it anyway over the roar of the engines. The AMA’s slogan is Rights, Riding, Racing. So let’s take score:

One leader, one mission: NASCAR 1, AMA 0

According to the AMA History page, the organization traces its roots back to a New York motorcycle club around 1900. But the real origins of the modern AMA were in 1920 when the Motorcycle and Allied Trades Association was founded. This group of motorcycle manufacturers and tradesmen needed a way to grow their market, so they created some committees to go out and organize events at which they could promote their motorcycles. That is the guiding philosophy of the AMA til this day.

The AMA allows any motorcycle-related business to become a Corporate Member and each such member gets one vote at any Corporate meeting. That means Honda, Suzuki, Kawasaki, Yamaha, H-D, BMW, etc all get seats at the table when major AMA policies are decided. Do you really think NASCAR would have grown to be the largest sports entity in America if Ford, GM, and Chrysler (all of which are teetering on bankruptcy, btw) had been making decisions for Bill France? Hell no!

Since it’s guiding principle is to protect the market for motorcycle sales the AMA does not understand why it should treat its racers as talent. The AMA fences off pit areas and makes most riders off-limits. With rare exception any public appearance, PR training, or accessibility is left completely to the rider or his team. The AMA demonstrates little, if any, respect for riders once they have collected the annual fees. In fact, it’s quite likely that most racer/members of the AMA are members only because they have to have a membership to race. Let’s take score again:

All business, no politics: NASCAR 1, AMA 0
Total : NASCAR 2, AMA 0

So I get it. AMA MX/SX is definitely not NASCAR. No sir. And we are all the poorer for it.

Comments Off on AMA motocross is not NASCARTags: ·

The cost of inner conflict

August 28th, 2007 · Politics of Riding, Safety

stingley_caoakOn Aug. 12, 1978 Darryl Stingley, a wide receiver for the NFL’s New England Patriots, was leaping for a pass he had no chance of catching. Stingley was airborne, his body almost parallel to the ground, arms outstretched. Jack Tatum, a defensive back for the Oakland Raiders, was running at full speed toward Stingley. Tatum launched himself, missile-like, at Stingley’s head. In one thunderous, perfectly legal collision Tatum’s helmet collided with Stingley’s, and Darryl Stingley’s life changed forever. His 4th and 5th vertebrae were crushed and his spinal cord was severed. (Source: “Darryl Stingley: Happy to be Alive” by Darryl Stingley with Mark Mulvoy.) Stingley would spend the next 29 years, until his death early in 2007, as a quadriplegic.

On February 18, 2001 the 43rd running of the Daytona 500 NASCAR race was underway. In the last turn of the last lap of what would become a key turning point in NASCAR history, Dale Earnhardt’s car hit the wall in what seemed to be a routine, for NASCAR, crash. Though the angle of impact was pretty severe, the crash did not appear life-threatening to observers. But they were wrong. Dale Earnhardt was dead. Investigation would later reveal that Earnhardt died instantly of head trauma. (Source: CNNSI Dale Earnhardt Chronology)

A responsible governing body takes action

What does this have to do with MX/SX and the AMA? Nothing. And everything. In the spring of 1980 the NFL rules committee instituted the first of a series of changes to protect the head and neck area of players and later to prevent players from using the front or top of helmet to strike another. Over time the NFL increased the severity of penalties for such hits to the point players could be ejected from the game and/or fined for flagrant offenses, as well as working to educate both players and referees about the dangers. The changes, often denounced by players and fans for making the game “too soft,” were designed to ensure the long-term health of the sport and to try and put some limits on a game that thrives on violence.

Immediately after Earnhardt’s death NASCAR launched a significant investigation. Independent medical experts were brought in to review the accident records and autopsy report. Ultimately, NASCAR would conclude that Dale Earnhardt died of a severe whip-lash that fractured his skull. But before the controversy ended Bill Simpson, founder of Simpson Safety Equipment and maker of Earnhardt’s seat harness, was forced to resign. And NASCAR officials were under intense scrutiny for how they handled the situation.

By November 2001 NASCAR had formally mandated a head-neck restraint device for all drivers in its Winston (Nextel) Cup, Busch Grand National, and Craftsman Truck series (Source: Jeff Gordon online.) Both major open-wheel racing associations – CART and F1 – had done the same. Numerous drivers complained about the devices, claiming they impaired peripheral vision increasing the chance of accidents, gave them claustrophobia decreasing their ability to concentrate, and could potentially cause other injuries in non-life threatening crashes. Despite the protests the devices were required in an effort to ensure the long-term health of the sport and return the risk of death to the periphery of racing, where it belongs.

Contrast this to what happens in MX/SX. I’m not going to waste space here recounting specific incidents. But if you are an MX/SX fan you know all too well the stories of David Bailey, Danny Chandler, Chase Borders, James Marshall, Ernesto Fonseca, Donovan Mitchell, Jimmy Button, and dozens of others who have suffered spinal cord injuries. Add to that the numerous occurrences of severe concussion and brain trauma that have left racers fully or partially disabled for weeks, months, and sometimes forever.

Yet there are no investigations of these accidents. There is no formal program, even at the national event level, to try and categorically understand the causes of these injuries or ways to prevent them. And there is certainly no movement to require the use of safety devices that might preclude or reduce the severity of such injuries.

And therein lies the problem. A governing body whose sole function was to protect, nurture, and grow the sport of MX/SX – and whose long-term financial health was tied directly to the health of the sport – would be aggressive about protecting the talent on which the sport is built. Such a governing body would, at its core, understand that racing is a talent-based entertainment business and, while part of the excitement is risk and danger, long-term success requires that the talent be able to show up every week and race. Consistently putting your talent in caskets or wheel chairs is just plain dumb. Letting your sport become too closely associated with permanent disability is irresponsible.

The NFL, NASCAR, CART, F1, and the IRL have figured this out. Even when it’s unpopular these organizations make safety decisions if they think it’s for the long-term betterment of their sport. But not the AMA.

The root of conflict

The AMA believes motorcyclists have individual rights and should be allowed to choose their safety equipment. The AMA’s position in support of voluntary helmet use says the following:

Although the Association strongly encourages helmet use by all motorcyclists, it maintains a long-standing fundamental belief that adults should continue to have the right to voluntarily decide when to wear a helmet.

The AMA opposes provisions conditioning rider choice of helmet use on economic criteria such as, but not limited to, additional insurance coverage, which is based on the negative and incorrect view that motorcyclists are a social burden. The AMA believes accepting such requirements is contrary to the long-term interests of motorcycling.

This position may well be the correct one for an organization that represents 100,000+ street riders. But it is certainly not appropriate for a governing body that wants to promote and protect a high-risk activity like MX/SX racing. Can you imagine if NASCAR or CART or the NFL tried to operate in today’s world with such a philosophy?

I’m not suggesting that the AMA, or anyone else, doesn’t care about safety. God knows, there was ample uproar after Ernesto Fonseca’s injury to make it clear that people both inside and outside the AMA are worried about this. And I’m not even suggesting that the AMA, or anyone else, should be mandating some specific safety device such as the Leatt brace.

What I am suggesting is that there is a reason why, despite all the outcry and good intentions, nothing (or at least very little) happens.

That reason is that the AMA is in fundamental conflict. The AMA’s allegiance to street riders – comprising two-thirds of its core purpose of Rights, Riding, and Racing – and its subsequent position on safety equipment, are in fact in fundamental conflict with the philosophies held by other well-governed sports organizations. And this conflict has consequences.

Such a conflict makes the AMA slow to address safety issues if such action might be seen as infringing on a rider’s individual rights. It took the AMA until 2007 to mandate something as simple and non-controversial as the Hats Off Emergency Helmet Removal device. The chances of mandating something as controversial as the Leatt brace – setting aside for the moment arguments about its effectiveness – in such circumstances are nil. And you can forget about mandating equipment such as chest protectors, back protectors, etc.

In a world where MX/SX was run by a dedicated organization – one whose primary focus was to promote, protect, and grow the sport for the long-term –  rider safety would likely be a priority. If nothing else the public outcry from the recent rash of horrific injuries would be forcing the organization to put resources into research, understanding, and experimenting to solve the problems.

But in a world where racing governance must compete with street rider’s rights, and where resources must be shared among street riders, historic preservation, government relations, and all manner of other worthwhile but unrelated motorcycle issues, indecision and the requirement to reach consensus before acting will continue to paralyze safety efforts in the same way injury is paralyzing our racers.

Comments Off on The cost of inner conflictTags: ····

Effects of motorcycle industry consolidation on the AMA

August 26th, 2007 · Industry

Recently I was on PitPass Radio, a weekly radio show that covers motorcycle racing. The hosts of the show – Scott Casbar, Tony Wenk, and Ed Kuhlenkamp – are really nice guys and do a great job. Their guest list is filled with industry leaders, racers, promoters, and interesting personalities from the world of two-wheeled competition.

I got on the show because I wrote a letter to them a few weeks earlier regarding a topic they had touched on and asking them to talk more about it. Their response was to have me on as part of the debate. The topic? Should the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) be the only sanctioning body for motocross racing in the US? Phrased a little differently – is it bad for the sport of MX if other groups or organizations try to wrest control of MX racing from the hands of the AMA?

In my letter I raised the issue that when the AMA was formed there were literally dozens of motorcycle manufacturers. But today there are just a handful – mainly the Big Four Jap companies and Harley-Davidson. The point I wanted to make is that as the industry consolidates we cannot afford to assume that what is good for the industry – nee the manufacturers – is good for motorcyclists.

The response I got was that this just isn’t true, that the industry still has many vibrant players – e.g. Ducati, Victory, KTM, etc. – and that consolidation hasn’t had the effect I think it has. Sadly, I just can’t agree.

Ducati is indeed a very active competitor in the industry and kicking butt in the MotoGP scene. Victory is certainly making some waves in the cruiser market. And KTM is having great success in off-road racing. The trouble is that being competitive on the race track, or selling a few bikes in a niche market, in no way correlates to the amount of power these companies have in the industry.

For example, according to BusinessWeek Ducati has $600 million in market cap. By contrast, Honda Motor Company has $59.3 billion in market cap with more than $5 billion in net profit (Forbes). Honda, by itself, could buy the entirety of Ducati with profits from a single month. Do you seriously believe these two are in any way equal politically or at a bargaining table? I looked at this a little further, trying to validate my theory that the Big 4 and HD dominate. Here are the market cap values I found:

I couldn’t find market cap info on KTM, but their sales, at €500 million/year, are about 30% of Piaggio’s so I’d reckon them about the same size as Ducati. (Editor’s note: It’s also nearly impossible to find unit sales or gross sales dollars specific to motorcycles for the larger manufacturers as they do not like to break them out. If you have authoritative numbers for unit sales or dollars by brand I’d like to see them.)There are other bit players in the market – Husqvarna, TM Racing, etc. But none of them matter. This is what the market looks like:


The Big 4 Japanese have 70% of the capital dollars in the motorcycle industry. BMW and H-D combine for another 26%. Everyone else is pretty much a rounding error. At least by this measure these six companies (the Big 4 Japs, BMW, and H-D) utterly dominate the motorcycle market in every way that really matters (it’s all about the money.) If you want to argue against that I don’t think we can even have a rational debate.

But my main point is that these same companies also dominate the AMA in every way that matters – policy, decisions, rules, etc. – for the simple reason that they have all the money. Now if you want to argue against that please be prepared to answer the following questions:

1) Can ~5% of the financial power of the motorcycle industry exert any meaningful economic influence over the other 95%?

2) Can ~5% of the financial power in the motorcycle industry exert any significant bargaining power politically, economically, or socially?

3) When the AMA must decide whether or not to take an action that will benefit rider-members but will significantly anger the 6-member motorcycle oligopoly – who control $150 billion of capital and 80%-90% of the market –  will the rider-members prevail?

If you answer yes to any of those questions you live in a very different, and vastly more naive, world than I do. Like it or not it’s all about the money. The AMA cannot represent the riders and the motorcycle industry at the same time because we, the riders, are not equal to the industry. Our interests and needs are not going to align perfectly with the industry. And we are stupid if we think our paltry membership (250,000 members is about $10 million in dues) is going to get us equal footing in a conflict.

This doesn’t make the AMA “bad” or inept. The people at the AMA are good, well-intentioned, hard working folks who love motorcycling.  But the AMA has an inherent conflict of interest — no organization can evenly represent two such politically and financially unequal bodies.

In my opinion the AMA should, first and foremost, represent the American motorcycle rider in all his/her permutations and an organization that tries to simultaneously represent the industry, no matter how well intentioned or managed, will not be the quality representative we deserve.

Comments Off on Effects of motorcycle industry consolidation on the AMATags: ··

That could have gone better

August 21st, 2007 · Industry, Politics of Riding

I just finished my little segment on PitPass Radio. I don’t know what I expected, and it certainly could have gone worse. But I didn’t feel like I did a very good job. I think they wanted someone a little more controversial and I’m just not that guy. At least not yet. I need to really think this through and do some research.

They asked me questions about ArenaCross and stuff. I don’t know anything about that. I just know that the AMA is not run like a business, and running professional motorsports is a business. That’s why it’s called professional. I know what I think but I’m not confident in my expression of it yet. Guess I better get to that research.

Comments Off on That could have gone betterTags: ·

I’ll be on PitPass Radio tonight

August 21st, 2007 · Events, Industry

I wrote a couple of weeks ago about my letter to Scott Casbar at PitPass Radio. Looks like I’ll be on tonight. Wish me luck. They seem like nice guys. Hope I don’t get “Jerry Springer’d”.

Comments Off on I’ll be on PitPass Radio tonightTags: ·

Should the AMA get out of racing?

August 1st, 2007 · Politics of Riding, Racing

Tuesday nite I was listening to PitPass Radio, a two-hour weekly talk show about all manner of two-wheeled competition. The hosts, Scott Casbar and Tony Wenck, do a really good job, covering all kinds of topics and guests from the world of motorcycle racing past and present. I listen to the show live whenever I’m home (not often) and listen to the MP3 archive if I can’t catch them live.

Anyway, Tuesday they had Fred Freese of on the show the conversation turned to whether or not the AMA was the right organization to be running professional motorcycle racing – specifically offroad races like motocross, Arenacross, and ATV racing. The discussion wasn’t very long – they just touched on it, really. But I thought it was an important issue and one that needs some serious debate.

After thinking about it for a day or so I sent an e-mail to Scott that said, essentially, the AMA is probably the wrong organization and alternative sanctioning bodies are definitely something we need to think about. You can read the letter here. I didn’t really think it through very well but I’ve been around racing for a long time and, while the AMA does some things very well, managing the growth and health of motocross is not one of them. It never has been. I guess the guys are looking for a bit of controversy to spice things up and figured I’d be a good mark for that because they sent me a response and asked me to be on the show sometime in the next few weeks.

I don’t know when yet. I’ll post it here when I do. I have no idea how to do this. I’m certainly no expert. Just a guy who has some ideas about why the AMA is the wrong organization and some insight into why many grassroots racers are unhappy with them. But I don’t know nuttin’ bout being on no radio show. We’ll see how it goes.

Comments Off on Should the AMA get out of racing?Tags: