2T vs 4T: Where Do You Stand?

In Transmoto’s June issue (#44), which hit newsstands on May 1, Andy Wigan’s Editorial drew attention to the radical resurgence of 250cc two-strokes – not only at club- and state-level racing, but in the national MX and SX championships. But with the benefit of hindsight, what do you think about the rule that made 250cc two-strokes eligible to race against 250cc four-strokes in Australia’s MX2/Lites and MXD/Under 19 classes? Which of the following prominent arguments – for and against the ‘all-in 250cc class’ rule – do you subscribe to?

PROs:

Live with it…

The rule was changed in 2008 (for the MXD class) and 2009 (for the MX2 class) in Australia for reasons everyone seemed to agree with at the time. No one complained about it until riders started putting two-strokes on the podium, and the combined class has fostered great racing in recent years. The rule change has served its purpose by keeping more people in the sport in tough economic times, so everybody needs to stop their whinging and play the bloody whistle. If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em. And if you do join ’em, then enjoy the fact that you can perform more DIY on your own bike and save a bomb on maintenance costs over the course of a season. What’s more, without two-strokes, the MX Nats’ MX2 and MXD grids would be half empty. 

Power isn’t everything…

There’s no use having a 50-plus horsepower 250cc two-stroke if you don’t have the ability or fitness to hang onto the thing for a full moto. On hardpack tracks where traction is at a premium, two-strokes are more difficult and more fatiguing to ride. In other words, if the two-stroke has an unfair advantage on the dyno, that doesn’t necessarily translate into an unfair advantage on the track.

Bring back the two-stroke…

The Japanese manufacturers simply need to swallow their pride, admit that two-strokes are, in fact, capable of meeting emission regulations, and resume production of these cheap, low-maintenance, fast machines for which there is clearly a large – and growing – demand around the world. Or as a Band-aid measure, surely it couldn’t be too hard for them to drop an ‘old’ 250cc two-stroke powerplant into the new-generation 250F’s chassis. A few engine mount mods and it’s done, right? The added benefit is that the 250cc two-strokes make riders’ transition onto a premier-class 450 much easier.

CONs:

Unforeseen consequences…

The intention of the rule change – to make racing more affordable in the sport’s ‘entry classes’ – has backfired because it’s actually made it more expensive to build a competitive four-stroke for the class. With many top riders now racing big-hp two-strokes, a 250cc four-stroke has to be tuned to within an inch of its life to stay anywhere near their valve-less, premix-burning classmates. These mods can’t be done at home and cost big, big bucks. In fact, building a competitive 250F is so expensive, the major factory race teams can no longer afford to run them.

Manufacturer discrimination…

In reply to the complaints that 250cc two-strokes now have an unfair performance advantage over 250Fs, the sport’s administrators and promoters point out that anyone is welcome to go out and buy themselves a nice cheap two-stroke. But as that suggestion is really a roundabout way of saying, “Go and buy a KTM or Husqvarna or TM” (the only three brands who now produce cutting-edge 250cc two-stroke MX bikes), the rule therefore discriminates against the Japanese manufacturers. So, if a rider has grown up with support from a Japanese manufacturer, the rule is now forcing him or her to turn their back on that loyalty.

International opportunities…

Two-stroke riders aren’t doing their international career aspirations any justice because winning in Australia on a two-stroke tends to be disregarded by overseas-based teams. The same applies when national teams are chosen for the MXoN, where two-strokes are not eligible. In other words, the current rule makes it harder to determine whether a rider is winning because his bike has got more power or because he’s actually a better rider.

Take a different tack…

If the rule was initially introduced to keep racing affordable, then there are better ways to achieve that. It would be better and fairer to simply cap the amount spent on modifying a 250F in the MX2 and MXD classes. Now that’d create a level performance-parity playing field and keep costs down – a no brainer, right?

Modify the rule…

Reverse the rule change for national MX/SX series only. This’d ensure the sport remains affordable at the club and state level (the objective of the rule change to begin with), but improve performance parity at the national championship level. It would also recognise the fact that manufacturers spend money on national race teams as a marketing exercise. If the 250Fs continue to get beaten, manufacturers’ support for teams and series may soon dry up. It’s already being reflected in relative bike sales between two- and four-strokes.

Reverse the rule change altogether…

Accept that we’ve been racing apples against oranges for a few years now, so reverse the rule change and insist that everybody in the MX2 and MXD classes race a four-stroke.