Here is my look back at the controversial Cannondale Motocross project

1/4/2021 12:10pm
EngIceDave wrote:
Maybe when an electric can do two 40's in mud with a rider going WFO?
Per this thread, they let the Cannondale in, and it didn't meet those requirements.
4
scott_nz
Posts
5701
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
NZ
Fantasy
390th
1/4/2021 12:16pm
EngIceDave wrote:
Maybe when an electric can do two 40's in mud with a rider going WFO?
Per this thread, they let the Cannondale in, and it didn't meet those requirements.
I presume cannondale had the use of the 1 year 4 stroke works bike rule exemption that Yamaha used with Henry , KTM used with lance smale and Honda used with ryno
2
Fourth_Floor
Posts
978
Joined
7/13/2016
Location
Saint Marys, PA US
1/4/2021 12:40pm
DC wrote:
Great piece TBlazier. In my opinion, if Cannondale, or even Harley-Davidson or Alta, just started at the minicycle entry level (like Cobra did) and evolved as...
Great piece TBlazier. In my opinion, if Cannondale, or even Harley-Davidson or Alta, just started at the minicycle entry level (like Cobra did) and evolved as a brand and a platform, all would have had a much better chance. But going up against the Big Four from Japan (and now the Big 2.5 from Austria) at the highest level--is a really expensive and steep task. You don't start building a brick wall from the top, right? Had Cannondale taken their treasure and bought Cobra from Bud Maimone and started there, I truly believe they would have had an excellent chance to make it as a motorcycle brand (and I even told Joe Montgomery that one day up at the Bedford, PA plant, after I snapped one of the prototypes in half while riding with Scott McGill at the nearby test track, because it was obvious at that point they were in for a very difficult and public R&D process).

That's why I believe KTM's move into the electric bike market at the junior minicycle level is very wise, because those kids are likely to grow up more likely to try electric bicycles, electric cars, and even electric motorcycles as those products evolve...

DC
Racer X
I get your point but it's not fair to lump Alta into any conversation involving Cannondale haha. The Alta guys showed the world what can be...
I get your point but it's not fair to lump Alta into any conversation involving Cannondale haha. The Alta guys showed the world what can be done. The Cannondale guys showed the world what not to do.
DC wrote:
Alta did make an amazing bike--I bought two of them. Much better and more dependable than the Cannondale was, compared to the other bikes of their...
Alta did make an amazing bike--I bought two of them. Much better and more dependable than the Cannondale was, compared to the other bikes of their relative times. My point is that rather than start in basically the top-of-the-line market, start at the entry-level and learn as you build a much cheaper model and evolve up, not down... I also believe that had Alta started with junior mini cycles (as KTM has in regards to e-Bike production) they would have had a much better chance.

DC
Racer X
I get your point, I just don't see how that applies to Alta. Cannondale's competition was Yamaha and KTM so they had to build a bike that ran better and was just as reliable. They failed miserably. The only reason the 4 wheel guys loved them is because it was either ride a new Cannondale or a 1989 250R, there was literally no competition race quad at the time.

Alta's competition was set for 250 class four strokes. Alta succeeded in producing a motocross machine that outperformed any 250 class machine off the showroom floor in both performance and reliability and they accomplished that in their first try which is unheard of. I don't know the politics but why wasn't this bike allowed to race? If a company is building enough bikes that I can go to a dealership and buy one, it should be allowed to race. If Alta could've raced Supercross and got the bike in front of that crowd I feel that would've changed the trajectory big time. Husaberg was doing the lightweight racing 4-stroke way before Yamaha but noone gave a shit until Yamaha put Henry on a 4-stroke for Supercross.

Cannondale's demise was bad engineering. Alta's demise seems more like politics.
3
DC
Posts
3890
Joined
5/1/2009
Location
Morgantown, WV US
1/4/2021 1:16pm Edited Date/Time 1/4/2021 1:17pm
I get your point but it's not fair to lump Alta into any conversation involving Cannondale haha. The Alta guys showed the world what can be...
I get your point but it's not fair to lump Alta into any conversation involving Cannondale haha. The Alta guys showed the world what can be done. The Cannondale guys showed the world what not to do.
DC wrote:
Alta did make an amazing bike--I bought two of them. Much better and more dependable than the Cannondale was, compared to the other bikes of their...
Alta did make an amazing bike--I bought two of them. Much better and more dependable than the Cannondale was, compared to the other bikes of their relative times. My point is that rather than start in basically the top-of-the-line market, start at the entry-level and learn as you build a much cheaper model and evolve up, not down... I also believe that had Alta started with junior mini cycles (as KTM has in regards to e-Bike production) they would have had a much better chance.

DC
Racer X
I get your point, I just don't see how that applies to Alta. Cannondale's competition was Yamaha and KTM so they had to build a bike...
I get your point, I just don't see how that applies to Alta. Cannondale's competition was Yamaha and KTM so they had to build a bike that ran better and was just as reliable. They failed miserably. The only reason the 4 wheel guys loved them is because it was either ride a new Cannondale or a 1989 250R, there was literally no competition race quad at the time.

Alta's competition was set for 250 class four strokes. Alta succeeded in producing a motocross machine that outperformed any 250 class machine off the showroom floor in both performance and reliability and they accomplished that in their first try which is unheard of. I don't know the politics but why wasn't this bike allowed to race? If a company is building enough bikes that I can go to a dealership and buy one, it should be allowed to race. If Alta could've raced Supercross and got the bike in front of that crowd I feel that would've changed the trajectory big time. Husaberg was doing the lightweight racing 4-stroke way before Yamaha but noone gave a shit until Yamaha put Henry on a 4-stroke for Supercross.

Cannondale's demise was bad engineering. Alta's demise seems more like politics.
Cannondale's competition in 2000 was all of the existing bikes they were going up against, existing two-strokes and four-strokes, in AMA Pro Racing, and they weren't up to the task before they ran out of money. Alta, on the other hand, didn't have any direct competition because no one else was ready in 2018 to compete against them with their own electric bike, so Alta wanted placed in the 250 class, not the 450 class, without letting the AMA even have the new model to compare. They were still trying to figure it all out when Alta closed up.

Alta's demise wasn't about politics, it was because they ran out of money. But they did build a very good electric dirt bike, and I wish they had stayed with it, because I believe electric bikes are going to be a normal part of the industry soon--they had the holeshot on everyone.

And like I said, I also feel they would have started at the base with junior minicycles and not tried to jump right into supercross. Just my two cents,

DC
Racer X
7
3

The Shop

Johnny Depp
Posts
6437
Joined
10/16/2014
Location
Buda, TX US
1/4/2021 4:13pm
DC it seems like we are past due for a way to introduce big E-bikes into Pro racing worldwide. They have no incentive to be involved so why would they?

Also in the news today is Beta going into MXGP, why is the barrier to entry in your series and SX so high?
DC
Posts
3890
Joined
5/1/2009
Location
Morgantown, WV US
1/4/2021 4:59pm
DC it seems like we are past due for a way to introduce big E-bikes into Pro racing worldwide. They have no incentive to be involved...
DC it seems like we are past due for a way to introduce big E-bikes into Pro racing worldwide. They have no incentive to be involved so why would they?

Also in the news today is Beta going into MXGP, why is the barrier to entry in your series and SX so high?
It's not "my series," and ever since 1986 there has been a production rule for AMA SX/MX that calls for units to be homologated by having a certain number of bikes available to the public (and thus not works bikes). It's not a barrier, it's just the system everyone wanted in the mid-eighties when brands like Honda and Kawasaki were outspending Yamaha and Suzuki and most other brands dropped out in the late seventies and eighties.

As far as eBikes go, in my opinion we need enough of them to come out to give them their own class and maybe even their own series. Because even though it is the same sport--racing dirt bikes--they are not the same machines.

DC
Racer X

5
Johnny Depp
Posts
6437
Joined
10/16/2014
Location
Buda, TX US
1/4/2021 5:07pm Edited Date/Time 1/4/2021 5:10pm
DC it seems like we are past due for a way to introduce big E-bikes into Pro racing worldwide. They have no incentive to be involved...
DC it seems like we are past due for a way to introduce big E-bikes into Pro racing worldwide. They have no incentive to be involved so why would they?

Also in the news today is Beta going into MXGP, why is the barrier to entry in your series and SX so high?
DC wrote:
It's not "my series," and ever since 1986 there has been a production rule for AMA SX/MX that calls for units to be homologated by having...
It's not "my series," and ever since 1986 there has been a production rule for AMA SX/MX that calls for units to be homologated by having a certain number of bikes available to the public (and thus not works bikes). It's not a barrier, it's just the system everyone wanted in the mid-eighties when brands like Honda and Kawasaki were outspending Yamaha and Suzuki and most other brands dropped out in the late seventies and eighties.

As far as eBikes go, in my opinion we need enough of them to come out to give them their own class and maybe even their own series. Because even though it is the same sport--racing dirt bikes--they are not the same machines.

DC
Racer X

At the least an adjustment to homologation limits seems appropriate since MX sales are a fraction of what they were when that rule was introduced. In my opinion the little guys aren't welcome and bike development has stalled.

Also my opinion, racing at the Pro level should represent the fastest way around a track regardless of how. If practice riders can buy faster bikes (Alta) it makes a mockery of Pro racing. I think we have seen in GNCC the size of the bike is not really the determining factor, and 2t or 4t doesn't matter with an open rulebook.

Thanks for listening and responding, and I am a huge fan of all you do for the sport. And Texas is ready for a National again..

Also the AMA says they have nothing to do with the rules, it is the promoters.
3
ATKpilot99
Posts
10251
Joined
4/13/2010
Location
Lake Geneva, WI US
1/4/2021 5:16pm
The homologation rule is an old horse that should be put out to pasture . Honestly what does it actually accomplish these days ? Factory teams have had access to unobtanium parts the whole time anyway so what's the point ?
6
DC
Posts
3890
Joined
5/1/2009
Location
Morgantown, WV US
1/4/2021 6:17pm
DC it seems like we are past due for a way to introduce big E-bikes into Pro racing worldwide. They have no incentive to be involved...
DC it seems like we are past due for a way to introduce big E-bikes into Pro racing worldwide. They have no incentive to be involved so why would they?

Also in the news today is Beta going into MXGP, why is the barrier to entry in your series and SX so high?
DC wrote:
It's not "my series," and ever since 1986 there has been a production rule for AMA SX/MX that calls for units to be homologated by having...
It's not "my series," and ever since 1986 there has been a production rule for AMA SX/MX that calls for units to be homologated by having a certain number of bikes available to the public (and thus not works bikes). It's not a barrier, it's just the system everyone wanted in the mid-eighties when brands like Honda and Kawasaki were outspending Yamaha and Suzuki and most other brands dropped out in the late seventies and eighties.

As far as eBikes go, in my opinion we need enough of them to come out to give them their own class and maybe even their own series. Because even though it is the same sport--racing dirt bikes--they are not the same machines.

DC
Racer X

At the least an adjustment to homologation limits seems appropriate since MX sales are a fraction of what they were when that rule was introduced. In...
At the least an adjustment to homologation limits seems appropriate since MX sales are a fraction of what they were when that rule was introduced. In my opinion the little guys aren't welcome and bike development has stalled.

Also my opinion, racing at the Pro level should represent the fastest way around a track regardless of how. If practice riders can buy faster bikes (Alta) it makes a mockery of Pro racing. I think we have seen in GNCC the size of the bike is not really the determining factor, and 2t or 4t doesn't matter with an open rulebook.

Thanks for listening and responding, and I am a huge fan of all you do for the sport. And Texas is ready for a National again..

Also the AMA says they have nothing to do with the rules, it is the promoters.
Thank you, and I do think they need to tweak the numbers for homologation and make it easier to get more brands on the line, easier.

DC
Racer X
4
Johnny Depp
Posts
6437
Joined
10/16/2014
Location
Buda, TX US
1/4/2021 7:10pm Edited Date/Time 1/4/2021 7:31pm
DC wrote:
It's not "my series," and ever since 1986 there has been a production rule for AMA SX/MX that calls for units to be homologated by having...
It's not "my series," and ever since 1986 there has been a production rule for AMA SX/MX that calls for units to be homologated by having a certain number of bikes available to the public (and thus not works bikes). It's not a barrier, it's just the system everyone wanted in the mid-eighties when brands like Honda and Kawasaki were outspending Yamaha and Suzuki and most other brands dropped out in the late seventies and eighties.

As far as eBikes go, in my opinion we need enough of them to come out to give them their own class and maybe even their own series. Because even though it is the same sport--racing dirt bikes--they are not the same machines.

DC
Racer X

At the least an adjustment to homologation limits seems appropriate since MX sales are a fraction of what they were when that rule was introduced. In...
At the least an adjustment to homologation limits seems appropriate since MX sales are a fraction of what they were when that rule was introduced. In my opinion the little guys aren't welcome and bike development has stalled.

Also my opinion, racing at the Pro level should represent the fastest way around a track regardless of how. If practice riders can buy faster bikes (Alta) it makes a mockery of Pro racing. I think we have seen in GNCC the size of the bike is not really the determining factor, and 2t or 4t doesn't matter with an open rulebook.

Thanks for listening and responding, and I am a huge fan of all you do for the sport. And Texas is ready for a National again..

Also the AMA says they have nothing to do with the rules, it is the promoters.
DC wrote:
Thank you, and I do think they need to tweak the numbers for homologation and make it easier to get more brands on the line, easier...
Thank you, and I do think they need to tweak the numbers for homologation and make it easier to get more brands on the line, easier.

DC
Racer X
Thank you, hopefully we can see a reduction in homologation numbers, it might not be long before Suzuki couldn't qualify either..and Honda's newest model is rumored to be in very small numbers.
I have little doubt it would be a fan favorite to see some of the boutique brands put teams together and cheer for the underdogs.Including e-bikes and equal displacement 2t's. No manufacturer will do it if they aren't welcome to promote their new models. If the fear is that they would suddenly dominate, that would be progress, if they suck there is nothing to lose. The track should be the ultimate proving ground.
The Premier Class has lost it's luster, 250's are just as fast. Let's make the Open class special again.
mike31
Posts
1
Joined
2/3/2021
Location
Hidden Valley Lake, CA US
2/3/2021 12:45pm

I picked up a Cannondale last year just because of the nostalgia. It's a cool piece of american history. This bike has all the updates done as well as revalved Ohlins suspension, brembo brakes, ported head with bigger cams and better mapping along with a 460 big bore. It actually runs pretty good!
11
JohnQ
Posts
1
Joined
5/10/2021
Location
Trabuco Canyon, CA US
5/20/2021 8:29am
philG wrote:
This is what happens when people who dont make MX bikes, try to make MX bikes. When you see the air intake, it straight away tells...
This is what happens when people who dont make MX bikes, try to make MX bikes.

When you see the air intake, it straight away tells you the job is done, for all the reasons you said. The fact that someone didnt say 'no' at that point , tells you it didnt have the people involved that had the experience to make it all work .

I have a few Vertemati's and you can see a few things like that on those bikes too, but they are a damn sight closer to what they need to be , than the Cannondale , for a lot less money.



Who was the engine designer?
The lead engine designer for the Cannondale was Gary Robinson, probably best known in MC circles for his creation and development of the CanAm brand in the early 70's.(of course along with Bombardier) A long story behind that as well, some of which is detailed on www.canned-ham.com (no affiliation) No, he was not a "NASCAR" engine builder although the shop was located in the heart of NASCAR country. He did have dealings with some of the NASCAR teams on different projects from time to time but mostly acted as an engineering arm for many OEMS,across many industries.

Gary and the team he assembled, were in fact, VERY experienced and capable in the design and development of motorcycles.

As an individual, Gary is extremely talented and a brilliant engineer. A dying breed who's accomplishments are too many to list and also go largely without the credit they deserve. Case in point, all of these years later and most people, even industry insiders, don"t know that he was behind much of the Cannondale development. Although it is also one most would not brag about after the way it turned out!

The actual story behind this motorcycle is very long, the gist of which has been captured in this diary, but many facts and occurrences are missing. Not criticizing the story, just trying to shed some additional light. It is actually nice to see some are still interested it's history and talking about it.

I can tell you this for sure, Gary and his team had little to do with the final outcome and ultimate failure of this MC.
The project was pulled from Gary waaaay too early and brought "in house" to Cannondale. The bike required at least 2 or more years of development (IMO) to produce a reliable, competitive machine. Cannondale management was not having any of that!

Due to the time and money wasted with Folan, the project was way behind and millions over budget with nothing to show but a literal, milk crate full of engine parts! (5 mil. spent on the worst engine I've ever seen) After pulling the project from Gary, they rushed the bike to market to appease shareholders who were growing weary and skeptical of the project and it's potential for success. Almost all of the "poor engineering" and issues that existed, were known about, most to be expected at the stage where the bike was at.

Forced by "Bankers" to get the bike to "market" when it was well known and proven, to only run for 15 min. before the ignition completely failed! Among many other issues that everyone here is aware of.

An actual quote from Cannondale management, "We don't know anything about engines, but we know we can develop one faster than you" Well, they got half of that statement correct!

American corporate culture, greed, hubris (someone else in this post nailed that one) arrogance, to name only a few, is what doomed the project and the company.

Bearuno
Posts
4529
Joined
6/28/2014
Location
AU
5/20/2021 10:19am Edited Date/Time 5/21/2021 2:35am
DC wrote:
Thank you, and I do think they need to tweak the numbers for homologation and make it easier to get more brands on the line, easier...
Thank you, and I do think they need to tweak the numbers for homologation and make it easier to get more brands on the line, easier.

DC
Racer X
So DC, who is "they".

The AMA say it's the Promoters who have control of the rules.

MX Sports are the Promoters, to most of our knowledge.

Or, does it come down to the France family company / Daytona group, who MX Sports 'lease' ( for want of a better term) the running of the sport from?

Or, is "they", basically the major manufacturers - Honda, Yamaha, Kawasaki, Suzuki and the KTM 'group' of bike names? So, effectively, this "they", being able to keep out the smaller manufactures like Beta, TM and Sherco, who may want to do the Nationals, even in a small way.

You are a true steward of our sport, you obviously love it, and you deserve to make a good living for all you, your family, your employees and volunteers do for the sport. I'd love to see the US Nationals have the same sort of Manufacturer access as they do in the GNCC series, and the same sort of equivalency rules.

2
DC
Posts
3890
Joined
5/1/2009
Location
Morgantown, WV US
5/20/2021 11:22am Edited Date/Time 5/20/2021 11:24am
DC wrote:
Thank you, and I do think they need to tweak the numbers for homologation and make it easier to get more brands on the line, easier...
Thank you, and I do think they need to tweak the numbers for homologation and make it easier to get more brands on the line, easier.

DC
Racer X
Bearuno wrote:
So DC, who is "they". The AMA say it's the Promoters who have control of the rules. MX Sports are the Promoters, to most of our...
So DC, who is "they".

The AMA say it's the Promoters who have control of the rules.

MX Sports are the Promoters, to most of our knowledge.

Or, does it come down to the France family company / Daytona group, who MX Sports 'lease' ( for want of a better term) the running of the sport from?

Or, is "they", basically the major manufacturers - Honda, Yamaha, Kawasaki, Suzuki and the KTM 'group' of bike names? So, effectively, this "they", being able to keep out the smaller manufactures like Beta, TM and Sherco, who may want to do the Nationals, even in a small way.

You are a true steward of our sport, you obviously love it, and you deserve to make a good living for all you, your family, your employees and volunteers do for the sport. I'd love to see the US Nationals have the same sort of Manufacturer access as they do in the GNCC series, and the same sort of equivalency rules.

Hi Bearuno, it's a complicated alphabet soup sometimes--the AMA, AMA Pro Racing, DMG, the FIM, FELD, MX Sports... Nobody that I know wants to keep smaller manufacturers out, but the AMA (which ran things completely when Cannondale was trying to get into moto) has long had what are called homologation rules to make sure that everyone is racing production-based motorcycles. This maybe goes back to the AMA's Production Rule of 1986, which is still the rule to this day in AMA SX and AMA Pro Racing MX. The idea was that in order to participate you had to build a specific number of a particular motorcycle that were available through a dealer network, or even on the water headed to the market, and that number has been 400 for sometime. The thought was that if Honda/Kawasaki/Suzuki/Yamaha/KTM (this was 1985-86) had to race production bikes, a hand-built Mugen Honda or a one-off Italy-made Gilera or Cagiva couldn't line up against them...

I was just a privateer and a college student back in 1985 - '86 and didn't have much say in any of this (other than to read about it in Cycle News like everyone else) but I believe the homologation numbers were built around a reasonable manufacturer's model-year run at that time, which was 400. And maybe now it's time to revisit that number or maybe go back to having a one-year exemption (like they did with four-stroke development) on those minimum numbers to help others join the sport. At the same time we don't want to destroy the production rule, because I personally think it's worked pretty well over the years to keep a balanced playing field. It's awesome that we now have seven OEMs racing on the AMA circuit right now, and a very strong post-COVID marketplace for motorcycles. Eight or nine OEMs would be even better, no doubt. But it would take of those entities listed above to agree to such a move, not just one person or series or sanctioning body...

Sort of related: Don't forget about one of the lessons of the controversial Cobra's arrival in the mid-nineties. It was an elite entry-level product that the founder Bud Maimone thought would revolutionize junior minicycle racing and lead all of the existing OEMs to up their games and build better, faster minicycles. It certainly revolutionized the class, but it also led the existing OEMs to simply stop development of their 50cc motorcycles because they really didn't want to make elite entry-level products and knew they couldn't compete with Cobra's remarkable little machines, so why bother?

DC
Racer X
1
5/20/2021 11:33am Edited Date/Time 5/20/2021 11:34am
DC wrote:
Thank you, and I do think they need to tweak the numbers for homologation and make it easier to get more brands on the line, easier...
Thank you, and I do think they need to tweak the numbers for homologation and make it easier to get more brands on the line, easier.

DC
Racer X
Bearuno wrote:
So DC, who is "they". The AMA say it's the Promoters who have control of the rules. MX Sports are the Promoters, to most of our...
So DC, who is "they".

The AMA say it's the Promoters who have control of the rules.

MX Sports are the Promoters, to most of our knowledge.

Or, does it come down to the France family company / Daytona group, who MX Sports 'lease' ( for want of a better term) the running of the sport from?

Or, is "they", basically the major manufacturers - Honda, Yamaha, Kawasaki, Suzuki and the KTM 'group' of bike names? So, effectively, this "they", being able to keep out the smaller manufactures like Beta, TM and Sherco, who may want to do the Nationals, even in a small way.

You are a true steward of our sport, you obviously love it, and you deserve to make a good living for all you, your family, your employees and volunteers do for the sport. I'd love to see the US Nationals have the same sort of Manufacturer access as they do in the GNCC series, and the same sort of equivalency rules.

DC wrote:
Hi Bearuno, it's a complicated alphabet soup sometimes--the AMA, AMA Pro Racing, DMG, the FIM, FELD, MX Sports... Nobody that I know wants to keep smaller...
Hi Bearuno, it's a complicated alphabet soup sometimes--the AMA, AMA Pro Racing, DMG, the FIM, FELD, MX Sports... Nobody that I know wants to keep smaller manufacturers out, but the AMA (which ran things completely when Cannondale was trying to get into moto) has long had what are called homologation rules to make sure that everyone is racing production-based motorcycles. This maybe goes back to the AMA's Production Rule of 1986, which is still the rule to this day in AMA SX and AMA Pro Racing MX. The idea was that in order to participate you had to build a specific number of a particular motorcycle that were available through a dealer network, or even on the water headed to the market, and that number has been 400 for sometime. The thought was that if Honda/Kawasaki/Suzuki/Yamaha/KTM (this was 1985-86) had to race production bikes, a hand-built Mugen Honda or a one-off Italy-made Gilera or Cagiva couldn't line up against them...

I was just a privateer and a college student back in 1985 - '86 and didn't have much say in any of this (other than to read about it in Cycle News like everyone else) but I believe the homologation numbers were built around a reasonable manufacturer's model-year run at that time, which was 400. And maybe now it's time to revisit that number or maybe go back to having a one-year exemption (like they did with four-stroke development) on those minimum numbers to help others join the sport. At the same time we don't want to destroy the production rule, because I personally think it's worked pretty well over the years to keep a balanced playing field. It's awesome that we now have seven OEMs racing on the AMA circuit right now, and a very strong post-COVID marketplace for motorcycles. Eight or nine OEMs would be even better, no doubt. But it would take of those entities listed above to agree to such a move, not just one person or series or sanctioning body...

Sort of related: Don't forget about one of the lessons of the controversial Cobra's arrival in the mid-nineties. It was an elite entry-level product that the founder Bud Maimone thought would revolutionize junior minicycle racing and lead all of the existing OEMs to up their games and build better, faster minicycles. It certainly revolutionized the class, but it also led the existing OEMs to simply stop development of their 50cc motorcycles because they really didn't want to make elite entry-level products and knew they couldn't compete with Cobra's remarkable little machines, so why bother?

DC
Racer X
Just convince the OEMs to do what Lancia did in the 80s during the last of the "group B" days; say you have 400 in two separate lots, show the first 200, take the scrutineers out for an afternoon beverage or two, drive the same 200 over to a separate lot, and bingo 400 is all done Wink
1

Post a reply to: Here is my look back at the controversial Cannondale Motocross project

The Latest