IJMS/Articles/Russell

On a warm summer morning in 1970, a 13-year-old boy pushes a small motorcycle out of the family garage, through the backyard beyond the fluttering laundry, between cemented-metal poles, down the street past other suburban houses, and then off the fresh blacktop and over the stones onto a dirt path. He stops—a little sweaty, excited. The little motorcycle is Japanese; it has off-road “knobby” tires; it is lightweight, starts easily, and is reliable; it seems engineered for fun.

As he sits on the bike and turns the gas tap on, Americans are sweltering under the tropical heat in South Vietnam, parents across the country are wondering in amazement at the dress their children are wearing, the President of the United States is a besieged Richard M. Nixon, and the teenager up the street is opening the door to a Plymouth Roadrunner, carrying a small baggie of marijuana.

The boy moves the kick-starter through its stroke slowly. He turns the choke on, key on, and kicks hard. The engine coughs to life, belching blue smoke and clattering as the piston rings and cylinder heat and expand. He releases the clutch and lurches down the trail, batting branches out of the way as he passes in and out of sun-dappled and shadowed patches of dirt. It is a wonderful morning—it will melt into his memory.

The boy is a part of the culture of dirt bikes, brought about by the convergence of technology and an accessibility to riding areas. The decade of the 1970s exhibited an unprecedented interest in off-road motorcycles, and in the development of a dirt bike culture encompassing recreation, competition, and a set of common values. In this essay, I will examine elements of the dirt bike culture of the 1970s, and attempt to identify both traits and causal factors.

The 1960s re-introduced to Americans a sense of individual freedom and a vast universe of possibilities. Always a nation espousing personal liberty and the inalienable right to pursue one’s own concept of personal fulfillment, the ‘60s seemed virtually to require one to reach out past “normal” boundaries and do something outside the conventional envelope of traditional American behavior.

Deeply entwined in the 1960s’ message was a “back to nature” ideology, stating essentially that Nature was good, and technological progress--and most if not all aspects of the predominant culture--were at worst evil and dangerous and at best silly and restrictive. Many young people, in particular, felt a need to simplify their lives and goals, and rediscover natural areas and a less complex existence. They ventured outside to discover what they had almost missed, leaving their fathers’ firearms and fishing gear behind. The forests, deserts, plains, countryside, and suburban fields were ready—unrestricted and without fences, as yet thought fairly resilient to mans’ presence. (Although starting off similarly as long-haired unconventional adventurers, the dirt riders’ and the environmentalists’ conflicting ideas over the use of public lands soon brought the groups into opposition. The have remained at odds since the 1970s.)

The motorcycle, itself a symbol of freedom and escape, stood ready. Across the continent, a boy and girl in California depart the paved road into the desert, holding their legs out for balance as they ride slowly towards the far ridge…

If one accepts the premise that the first practical motorcycles were available in America in about 1911,*1 then—given the state of the Federal, state, and local road system at this time—one must also accept these early motorcycles as off-road machines. Roads in the early part of the twentieth century were more likely than not covered with dirt or crushed stone—if anything—and early manufacturers designed their machines accordingly. Early Harleys, Indians, Flying Merkels, and Cyclones shared (relatively) spartan frames, carried no unnecessary weight, and were equipped with tires resembling today’s off-road tires. They did, in fact, resemble a Ford Model T in each of these respects, being made for an American road system and landscape far different than today's. As America’s road system added an increasing percentage of improved or paved roads in the 1930s and afterwards, we see the American motorcycle gaining weight, being equipped with more powerful engines (to handle increased road speeds) and tires with a more pavement-friendly profile and tread design. This change in design is easily recognized if we compare the Indian Scout of circa-1925 to the Indian Chief of the 1940s; the Chief weighs 150 pounds more than the better-handling Scout, and is clearly designed more as a road-going machine capable of higher speeds.

These design trends continued through the 1950s in America, disturbed only slightly by the appearance of smaller-engined machines and motorcycles of foreign manufacture (the Japanese Honda and the British Triumph, BSA, Norton, etc.). While British machinery had been available on the North American continent for decades, the differences in performance became accentuated in the 1950s and 60s when native-American machines became so heavy that their large engines could no longer compensate for their bulk; British machines, on the other hand, experienced greater and greater performance (power-to-weight ratios) as engine power increased and weight remained relatively constant or decreased.*2

While American riders always had a tendency to remove the lights and fenders from their motorcycles and find a hill or track to race up or around,*3 the higher-performance British motorcycles in particular led to the development of off-road events requiring lower weights and greater reliability, such as desert races, cross-country races, and closed-circuit “enduro” or “scrambles” races, where the heavy and ponderous-handling Harleys and Indians were utterly out of their element.

In the mid-to-late 1960s, European off-road competition motorcycles by such manufacturers as Husqvarna, CZ, and Maico began appearing in America, joined by the new Yamaha DT-1. These machines offered a level of performance which in turn made the British machines appear overweight and sluggish. Among the characteristics these new lightweight machines shared were:

• Light vehicle weights ( generally 250 lbs or less)
• Excellent handling (partially a function of lighter weight, partially a function of geometry, suspension, and other components)
• High power-to-weight ratio (lightweight, tuned two-stroke engines meant the power to weight ratio of a strong 400cc bike would equate to the 2000hp of a VW Beatle)

These machines were purpose-built for off-road (or on- and off-road in the case of the Yamaha DT-1) use, with knobby tires and number plates replacing lights—perhaps befitting the gun-making heritage of several of the companies. (Husqvarna, CZ, and BSA were all centuries-old munitions manufacturers.) As the next decade began, motorcyclists—and potential motorcyclists with little connection to the current motorcycle culture, with all its undeniable negative connotations—saw available to them an array of machinery which possessed capabilities previously unheard of and immensely tempting. Never before had the public seen motorcycles with such power and handling; and, not only did they exist, but the European bikes could be purchased for a sum of money about 1/3 that of a domestic car. Likewise, the presence of the new “on/off-road” Japanese lightweight machines enlisted new riders, drawn to these motorcycles’ low cost, reliability, versatility, and clear disassociation from the black-leather jacketed biker image of the 1960s.*4

As the baby boomers entered the 1970s, the catalysts were in place for a biker movement quite unlike those of previous decades.

DIRT BIKE DESIGN
As it entered the 1970s, the dirt bike had achieved the basic design (less long-travel suspension, water-cooling, and disc brakes) it retains to this day. To meet the demands of the recreational off-road rider and leave both man and machine intact at the end of the day, the machine had to meet five basic criteria.

The dirt bike needed to reach a weight below 300 lbs. No matter what the power, a machine of above 300 lbs is unsuitably heavy for even an adult male to handle off-road, is likely to be unable to pass through swampy or tight terrain, and is much more dangerous in the event of a crash. The lightest machines of the decade weighed in below 230 lbs in the case of light motocross bikes; trials bikes weighed even less.

Power must be adequate. The modern two-stroke engine of the 1970s of even 100cc displacement produced enough power to move the dirt bike off-road. Two-stroke engines were more powerful, lighter, simpler in design, and less mechanically complex than their four-stroke predecessors, and their greater reliability was essential.

Strength. Frames, forks, and wheels needed to be strong, yet lightweight. Chrome-moly, magnesium and aluminum alloys, and plastics came into widespread use for the first time on bikes of the 1970s.

Suspension is more critical to the handling of dirt bikes than on-road machines. For the first time, suspension rebound and damping rates and characteristics entered the thoughts of the recreational motorcyclist.

Handling is a function of all aspects of motorcycle design and construction. The handling characteristics of late 1960s European dirt bikes was recognized as superior to that of all other bikes, and basic frame geometry, wheelbase, fork rake and travel, and wheel size were copied onto the new Japanese dirt bikes of the '70s and continually improved upon.

American riders and development engineers of the time (hired by Japanese companies) immersed themselves in the improvement of all aspects of motorcycle performance and were in fact directly responsible for two of the seminal designs of early dirt machines—the Yamaha DT-1 and the Honda CR-250M Elsinore. As the decade progressed, the Japanese dirt bike became more and more an American creation, built to the unique requirements of the American landscape and for American forms of competition. By the late 1970s, the Japanese machines came to dominate international dirt bike sales.

BRAND CHARACTERISTICS AND BRAND IDENTIFICATION
When comparing the dirt bikes available to Americans in the 1970s to those available in 2000 and beyond, two thoughts come to mind: 1) there were many more available for purchase in the '70s, and, 2) the bikes available then looked much different—both from the homogenous plastic and aluminum modern dirt bike, and from each other.

Buyers in the '70s could chose between machines from several countries, including Japan (Yamaha, Honda, Kawasaki, Suzuki), Spain (Montesa, Bultaco, Ossa), Sweden (Husqvarna), Germany (Maico), Austria (KTM, Puch), Canada (Bombardier), Czechoslovakia (CZ, Jawa), and even America (Harley-Davidson and Penton), to name only the most prevalent makes.*5 Unlike modern machines, these motorcycles were built and performed differently from one another. Each bike at this point in dirt bike engineering possessed a mechanical personality and aesthetic projection that vastly differentiated them from machines produced even a decade later, as technology more precisely defined the optimal dimensions and construction of each component in order to achieve maximum performance. Riders took to this cornucopia of choices enthusiastically, and developed quite often a fierce brand loyalty to their chosen bike. To see a rider with his motorcycle brand written predominantly down each pant leg, on each sleeve of his jersey, and on his helmet was very common, and this identification with the manufacturer was entirely accepted.

Encouraging this brand identification was certainly the immense individuality of the various machines, which captured the fancy of an American generation prizing individuality in all things. American riders lined up variously behind each brand: Yamahas for their low cost and high-quality finish; CZs, with their immense tractor-like power-bands and aluminum-and-leather farm implement construction; bright yellow, precise-handling Maicos with harsh, Teutonic lines; rocket-fast, temperamental and lavishly-painted Spanish Bultacos and Ossas; and inexpensive but fast and reliable Kawasakis and Suzukis. Each brand seemed to possess some quality pertaining to its national origin, and American riders gloried in their ability to identify with a particular factory and with its winning riders, at once declaring their own independence and at the same time accepting membership in a fraternity of like-minded riders. The dirt bike rider did not progress to the point of “restrictive individualism,” where by not conforming with one set of rules one finds himself conforming to another, even harsher system of comportment (as is the case with many a modern American Harley rider, who becomes a self-parody of individualism, as each individual/rebel becomes nearly identical in appearance to the next individual/rebel). Instead, the American dirt rider of the '70s enjoyed individuality of passion, dress, and a new frontier. His was a biker persona never before seen.

COMPETITION
An inextricable part of the dirt bike boom of the 1970s was the competitive nature of the dirt biker himself and the growth of organized competitive events. While many involved in the culture were content to ride only, the seemingly inescapable qualities of motorsport made dirt bike riders naturally want to go faster, farther, or fly higher. Even individual off-road riders are at some time or another competing at least with themselves to take the next turn faster; to ride over an obstacle and not around it; to successfully negotiate a particular terrain feature. For many riders, the progression to competitive events was entirely predictable.*6

Virtually from the beginning of motorcycling in America, riders had engaged in competitive events. The earliest organized events included riding motorcycles around steeply-banked board-track stadiums and off-road hill-climbing. Soon competition around flat, natural dirt tracks was taking place—becoming known as Flat-track or Dirt-track—and this racing became the staple of county fairs across America. As the 1970s began, flat-track racing and road-racing (on a closed-circuit, paved course) were firmly entrenched as the American Motorcycle Association (AMA) preferred venues of racing.

While present in North America for at least a decade, “Motocross” (or “Scrambles” by its original European name)—racing over natural terrain on a closed course of usually one mile or less—was just beginning to surge in popularity in the latter part of the 1960s.

Requiring little more than a helmet, a motorcycle with off-road tires, a set course over the ground, and an urge to go fast, motocross soared in popularity among Americans as the decade began. Not only was motocross a relatively cheap way to enter motorsport racing, but it was fast moving and hugely exciting for participants and observers alike. Further assisting its rise was the great number of excellent purpose-built motocross available to the American buyer at much less a percentage of disposable income than to the overseas buyer. Motocross was accepted, albeit begrudgingly, by the older and conservative AMA leadership, who seemed to consider it an unruly upstart compared to the established flat-track and road-racing venues.

Similar to motocross were races over natural terrain involving longer closed courses (Hare Scrambles and Enduros) and point-to-point desert races (such as the Baja 1000). On the other end of the speed spectrum was the traditional European export of Observed Trials, wherein the object was to cross very difficult natural terrain without resorting to “dabbing”—putting one’s foot down for slow-speed balance. Speed was not a primary factor in trials competition, and the relative low-expense and safety of the event, combined again with excellent, purpose-built machines (particularly Spanish-made), won a small but dedicated following in the ranks of riders.

Flat-track, which must be considered an off-road event for no other reason than that it is run on dirt, maintained its pre-1970 following, growing with motorcycling as a whole and remaining the favored child of the AMA.

Overall, motocross and enduro riders comprised the vast majority of dirt bike competitors. For many of these enthusiasts, competition and riding were synonymous; as can be seen today in areas around the world such as South Africa where open riding areas are very limited. Serious amateur competitors, willing to pay the costs in equipment, maintenance, and travel time to regional and national-level events, were perhaps the most visible examples of 1970s dirt bike culture. These men and women and their families worked on racing bikes several evenings a week, drove to far-off events on Friday or Saturday, camped out at the racetrack, and raced all day Sunday. They attended national events to compete or to watch the emerging factory-sponsored professional racers, and often lived a life revolving almost entirely around the dirt bike. Riding and competing—moving forward, advancing in points and status, being faster and better—defined a key tenet of the dirt competitor.

THE TRAIL BIKE BOOM; 1970-74
The influx of smaller-capacity, lightweight Japanese motorcycles—spearheaded in the late 1950s by Honda and capitalized upon in the 1960s by Yamaha, with their brilliantly American-designed and Japanese-engineered groundbreaking 250cc DT-1—only accelerated in the early 1970s (MacKellar 14-19).

The “Trail Bike,” as it became known by both manufacturer and buyer, was a relatively small (90cc-350cc) motorcycle meeting minimum street-legal requirements. It was a “dual-purpose” bike, and was often described in period advertising as being able to perform admirably on both the trip to the corner grocery store or on a ride up the most demanding mountain path. Being somewhat top-heavy due to excessive lighting/instrumentation/electronics and equipped with the ubiquitous Japanese “Trials-Universal” on/off-road tires, these machines were compromises at best and were in off-road application far inferior to their pure-bred European cousins. They were, however, inexpensive and infinitely safer and more enjoyable than, for example, riding one’s full-dress Harley through a swamp. Except for Honda (who initially favored four-stroke motors), each manufacturer equipped its machines with reasonably powerful (and perhaps more importantly, incredibly reliable) two-stroke single-cylinder engines. The finish on these machines in terms of paintwork, detailing, and gadgetry delighted American buyers, who quite possibly had prior experience with the oil-leaking, maintenance-intensive, and relatively unreliable American and British machines. The colorful little trail bikes found homes in every suburban neighborhood, and likely were responsible for more schoolroom daydreaming and wishing than any other subject in the minds of teenage boys (after teenage girls). Kawasaki, in particular, targeted the American family as a buying unit, and marketed trail biking as a wholesome family affair.*7 With government and private landowners still new to the idea, trail riders enjoyed unprecedented access to riding areas.

For many, trail biking off-road was an end in itself. For others this initial experience only whetted their appetites; instilling in them the urge to experience riding or racing aboard more capable racing machines, or serving as the door to road riding.

While the trail bike interest within dirt biking never died, reaction by environmentalists, preservationists, and landowners against off-road riding would only increase, and by the mid-1970s some of the novelty and much of the permissive land access had begun to subside.

THE LONG-TRAVEL SUSPENSION REVOLUTION—1974
At American motocross races in late 1973, (West German) Maico factory-sponsored racing bikes appeared with an unusual rear suspension modification--the rear shocks had been moved forward toward the front of the bike, effectively increasing how far the rear wheel could move up and down. Previous to this time, suspension travel had been fairly standardized, with front and rear-wheel travel about 6”-7” and 4”, respectively, on most machines. Perhaps not knowing they were beginning the biggest single technological change in off-road motorcycles ever, the engineers at the little German factory had increased both wheel travel distance and travel rate, and thus increased rear wheel contact time with the ground over any given length of bumpy terrain. This theoretically allowed engine power or braking action to be transmitted to the ground longer, and thus the bike could both accelerate and stop more quickly. Maico production machines in late 1974 came with the modified longer-travel rear suspension, proved superior to every other production machine, and by 1975 all major manufacturers were equipping their competition bikes with long-travel rear and matching long-travel front suspensions. By 1976-77, nearly all dirt bikes, whether trail or competition, were thus modified.*8 The net result was vastly more capable off-road motorcycles within the grasp of consumers world-wide, and a virtual dousing of gasoline on the fire of the dirt bike movement.

THE JAPANESE TAKE OVER; 1975-76
In a market where Americans greatly favored European purpose-built dirt bikes over the compromised Japanese machines for serious riding and competition, the Japanese had shown early in the decade they could produce world-class machinery when they chose to. Suzuki’s hand-built RN motocrossers brought Belgians Roger DeCoster and Joel Robert successive world motocross titles, and were reputed to cost $20,000 each. Honda in particular turned the dirt bike world around in 1973, with the introduction of its CR250M “Elsinore” racer, named after the annual Lake Elsinore, California race. Yet, for the most part, the Japanese built inexpensive and reliable bikes; while Ossa, Montesa, Maico, Bultaco, and other Europeans built expensive, finicky motorcycles that defined performance excellence and won races.

In the July 1975 issue of Dirt Bike magazine, the editors staged a contest between the Yamaha MX250B and a Maico 250 (arguably the finest motocrosser previously available). When the dust had settled, the undisputed “honest brokers” of the dirt bike world had to declare the Yamaha the better machine for the average American buyer, all things considered. Roughly from this point on the Japanese manufacturers would utilize their immense financial strength to produce superior machines for the American market—though with periodic and notable achievements by the smaller European factories.*9

BUDDIES TALKING: DIRT BIKE MAGAZINE
In early 1971, Richard Sieman—art restorer, weightlifter, ad salesman, and dirt bike rider—confronted Daisy Publishing owner Ray Golden with an idea. Sieman, a young transplant whose only publishing experience was several months selling ad space in chopper magazines, believed that the time was right for the production of a new motorcycle magazine, one unlike the many other bike magazines then in publication--which he viewed as little more than publicity organs for manufacturers. Golden balked, but Sieman persisted. Sieman envisioned a publication that would test equipment, give honest appraisals of new products and techniques, cover dirt bike events nationally, and serve as a forum for the emerging dirt bike culture. He saw it as “…well…Buddies Talking” (Sieman 136). And it would be called simply Dirt Bike magazine.

Rick “Super Hunky” Sieman was a Pennsylvania native and recent Navy veteran when he moved to California in the 1960s. Exposed to motorcycling in earlier years, he had owned several British street motorcycles and soon became assimilated into the Southern California bike racing culture. Sport motorcycle clubs in California at the time were clubs dedicated to off-road competition, and regularly held cross-country desert races and scrambles events in the then-unregulated desert. Sieman quickly fell in love with dirt competition and noted both the higher quality dirt bikes becoming available in the country, and also the general lack of on objective forum in the motorcycling press. Sieman saw the existing press—such as Cycle World, Popular Cycling, Big Bike--as not meeting the needs of the emerging culture, considered the time as right, and managed to convince Golden to give the idea a try.

The first issue of Dirt Bike appeared in June, 1971. The formula laid out by Sieman was not tampered with, and the actual finished product aligned with his vision: it featured honest and forthright product and event reviews; reflections of the Southern-California, national, and international dirt bike culture; and a humorous writing style throughout. Not only was Dirt Bike unique among motorcycle magazines, it was unique in a complex and contradictory manner which could be seen to characterize the dirt biker: blue collar yet extravagant towards his motorcycle; long-haired but politically and socially right-of-center; cynical but often utterly serious; carefree but strongly competitive. The publication soon established itself in 1971-1972 as not only the mouthpiece of the emerging culture, but also—together with local clubs nationwide—the binder that held the culture together. Whether Sieman envisioned it or not, Dirt Bike became by 1973 the trendsetter and national reflection of the American dirt bike movement, with young teenagers repeating the gospel of Dirt Bike magazine in all relative matters. Conceived as something of a counter-cultural voice, Dirt Bike had become the culture.

Sieman enlisted the witty editorial aid of young dirt bike devotees from other motorcycle publications such as David Swift, transplanted Texan Pete Szylagyi, and Pennsylvanian Chet Heyberger, alongside the sound technical advice of older 1960s-motorcyclists-turned-1970s-gurus such as Preston Petty, Dick Miller, Jim Connolly, and Gunnar Lindstrom. The accurate, funny, and self-effacing writing combined with a “tell the truth and damn the advertisers” mentality gave Dirt Bike an irresistible attraction to readers across the motorcycling spectrum, and the publication climbed continually in sales to undisputed domination in the off-road motorcycling market in three years. Sieman’s editorial tendency towards humor not only pervaded virtually all the magazine’s copy, but resulted in outrageous (for a magazine of the time) feature stunts and articles. Among the magazine’s typical offerings were: a biting performance test of the Honda SL-125, proclaiming a key product of the world’s largest motorcycle manufacturer a “Turtle Chaser”; a tongue-in-cheek “test” of the magazine’s staff vehicle, the wheezing “Great Yellow Dirt Bike Truck” (or GYDBT to the magazine’s fans); a series of actual requests to the governments of the Vatican, Togo, and third world countries asking their sponsorship of the Dirt Bike racing team; and lambastes of anything or anyone involved in off-road motorcycling. Sieman and Szylagyi’s columns were likewise laced with humor; often self-deprecating descriptions of their personal competition experiences (“Zounds—I Actually Win a Race!”, and “Pete Z and the World’s Fastest Toaster”) and pointed criticisms of organizations or persons recognized as not being beneficial to the sport (including large manufacturers, Big Government, unknowledgeable race promoters, and the American Motorcycle Association, to name a few).*10

Throughout the 1970s no other forum reflected and defined dirt bike culture as naturally and effortlessly as Dirt Bike. While Sieman would doubtfully even now concede that a simple magazine could be so much a force, many enthusiasts owed not only their concept of the culture, but also a slightly irreverent yet to-the-point communications style to its pages.*11

Dirt Bike continues today, though as a far-different publication, one much more commercial and conforming to the styles of other magazines. Rick Sieman resigned in 1974, returned in 1978, and quit again in 1985. Pete Szylagyi left to found the successful (and still publishing) Motocross Action in 1973, and his assistant editor and photographer, Paul Boudreau, later became an editor of Racer-X, a more leading-edge magazine in publication today.

Rick Sieman, in protest to the ever-increasing backlash against riding on public lands by environmentalist groups and the Bureau of Land Management, moved to Baja, California, where he resides today, writing and riding. Monkey Butt, a collection of his reminiscences of the dirt bike movement in the 1970s and 80s, was published in 1995.

THE BOOM CONTINUES: 1976-1980
The late 1970s saw two continued developments affecting the dirt bike culture: first, technology progressed and consistently better-designed, long-travel suspended, and more powerful motorcycles were introduced; second, the newness of the off-road motorcycle boom had worn off and landowners—both government and private—began to restrict access. This later development would continue without end, as environmental groups such as the Sierra Club mobilized to “protect” (as they saw their role) the lands against the damage from off-road vehicle use of all kinds. Even privately-owned riding areas were at risk as suburban growth expanded to within earshot of loud, un-muffled two-stroke engine exhausts and the voice of resentment to the new menace of “ear pollution” was heard. The dirt bike movement became the nemesis of not only suburban establishment, but also the environmental left—an uncomfortable and costly position it retains to this day.

Off-road drivers and motorcyclists found themselves at a clear disadvantage when confronted with the legal and financial clout of established nature proponents such as the Sierra Club. Existing as a loosely-bound fraternity of enthusiasts, dirt bikers had only the AMA to take up the legal fight, and the AMA was lacking in both resources and resolve for such a fight. If the off-road motorcyclist in Bruce Brown’s 1971 film On Any Sunday had finally replaced his image in the American mind from American Outlaw to that of American Sportsman, then in a major turnabout, the dirt biker found himself once again reduced to his old roles as lawbreaker and outlaw in actual practice. Western riders staged protest rides and showdowns with Bureau of Land Management officials and rangers, while youth riders across the country spent their early teens avoiding local police en route to and while enjoying nearby riding areas on the fringes of suburbia.

During this time of oppression from environmental groups and authorities, the popularity of the dirt bike nonetheless continued unabated; racing became more popular than ever and sales of new machines rose from year to year. The Japanese manufacturers gained market share with each passing year, and were building high-quality and reliable machines that not only rivaled the performance of but also retailed for hundreds of dollars each less than the European bikes. By 1980 the Japanese dominated the dirt bike market with but a small group of buyers still choosing non-Japanese makes.

Competition events grew, part as a natural recourse for riders being pushed from fast-closing public riding areas and in part due to their affiliation with established clubs and promoters who retained at least some minimum legal representation and were thus able to oppose the prevailing land closures. Motocross and enduro events both continued to climb in popularity, and motocross was now entering a more “mainstream” recognition, with important national races making it to television—albeit well after the race was held. Makers of motocross apparel also began to experience great growth, several of which were to grow to become major fashion and sportswear purveyors by the 1990s.*12 By 2003, California, the epicenter of the dirt bike culture, had lost over 50% of its riding area; a drop from over 13.5 million acres in the late 1970s to about 7 million acres today (Carpenter).

Why did participants in the dirt bike culture of the 1970s fall so wholeheartedly into the movement, and who where they?

As for descriptions of the culture—period or later—very little has been written. This at first struck me as unusual, given the tremendous interest of late in motorcycling culture wherein a past Hell’s Angels president can become a bestselling author by relating tales of drugs, violence, rape, and general debauchery; the newfound status of the street motorcyclist as rules-defying individualist and cool person; and the Art of the Motorcycle show breaking all attendance records at the Guggenheim. Riding has never been more hip; schoolteachers, stockbrokers, and lawyers are becoming Outlaws of pleasure with the simple additions of a be-stickered flat black half-helmet and a $21,000 motorcycle. “If I had to explain, you wouldn’t understand,” as the saying goes. Thus, how could so little be written about the dirt motorcycle?

I can only attempt to answer this question by suggesting that most participants having fun as members of the culture apparently felt no particular need to write about it, and those outside the culture simply weren’t interested. In my search for commentary on the subject, I found much written on events and bikes/technical subjects, but very little directly addressing the person—his background, values, and beliefs. To make up for this lack of data, I added to my own recollections those of other bikers who had been members of the culture. Their opinions and recollections, tied with inferences taken from period writings (particularly Dirt Bike magazine) and later writings, form the basis for my conclusions on who these men and women were, and why they rode.

Pervasive in my readings, interviews, and survey returns was the word “Freedom”--freedom from the worries of the real world, freedom from the bonds of gravity, freedom from the constructs of prevailing cultural norms. David Potter, in essence, describes the American as a human bent on moving forward, competing, overcoming obstacles . . . free in a land of abounding resources and opportunity (Potter 68-84), thus this need for freedom sounds entirely appropriate for the American dirt rider—and the dirt riders of every other nation.

Mark Taylor and Jose Marquez suggest that the dirt biker at speed exhibits a “defiance of natural physics” as he navigates the ever-changing environment. Taylor and Marquez go on to note the silent harmony between rider and machine as the two work together to subjugate the terrain, and, lastly, the ecstasy of approaching great speed—as opposed to actually achieving it—the thrill of accelerating, of rising to power and control, as opposed to the mundane state of actually being in control (Taylor and Marquez 40, my emphasis.)

Why else did they ride? Many other reasons are possible: the desire for speed, to risk danger and overcome it; to master a new physical challenge; or maybe to ride the technological wave of design improvements to motorcycles in the 1970s. They rode because they had never experienced such a thrill, such power, independence, or feeling of flight. Perhaps to “prove” something in the face of some risk—as Steve McQueen stated as his reason: “So I won’t forget that I’m a man and not just an actor” (qtd. in Burden 58). Perhaps even to a generation of Americans who rode bicycles or walked as basic transportation in an age prior to the parental indulgence and minivan of later decades, the small motorcycle was particularly enticing; maybe to the child of the 1960s who rode his Sears bicycle miles on hot summer days in search of amusement, a self-powered cycle was a miracle that a child of the 1980s and later simply cannot appreciate.

They also competed on motorcycles because of the relatively low cost of motorcycle competition as compared to other motorsports. Off-road motorcycle racing is, with the possible exception of go-cart and miniature (“midget”) auto racing, the one motorsport within the financial grasp of the average American family.

Who were they? Dirt bike riders of the 1970s came from a variety of backgrounds and socioeconomic groups which could generally be referred to as American “middle class”. At the height of their involvement in the 1970s, they tended to be (at least at that time):

Those riders could and did change with time, and 30 years later are found all across the range of professions, education, and income. Those interviewed in my interviews included a variety of current professionals, business owners, and hourly workers. Most still ride, though much less (owing to work and family demands, physical limitations, and detachment from the culture); some now only ride on the road, due to the relative ease. All showed a fond recollection of the decade and their involvement in the culture, and many still participated as collectors/restorers of vintage dirt bikes, in following modern off-road racing, in vintage racing, or in attending swap meets and bike shows dedicated to vintage motorcycles.

The American dirt bike culture of the 1970s was an outgrowth of a desire for freedom and new experiences as the 1960s ended; of the accessibility of vast riding areas; and of the availability of new, capable, and affordable dirt bikes. Since that time, the loss of significant amounts of riding area, the closing of many racetracks due to litigation, and the near-perfection of off-road motorcycle design have left a very different stage for the new dirt bike rider.

What a great ride it was!

Endnotes
*1 The date marks the sale of Harley-Davidson’s “Silent Gray Fellow.” The first motorcycle is considered to have been invented by the Michaux-Perreaux company in France in 1868; the first production motorcycle being the German Hildebrand & Wolfmuller in 1884.
*2 For comparison, a 1960 Harley-Davidson 1200 weighed 670 pounds and produced 55 horsepower (hp), yielding a power-to-weight ratio of 12.2lbs/1-hp; a 1960 Triumph Bonneville 650 weighed 404 lbs and produced 46hp for a superior ratio of 8.8lbs/1-hp.
*3The American sport of hill-climbing and board-track racing appeared almost simultaneously with the availability of Indians and Harleys from 1910 on.
*4 Honda, in particular, courted a clean, tennis-shoe-clad-teen image. Their corporate slogan was “You Meet the Nicest People on a Honda."
*5 The Harley-Davidson small two-strokes were actually manufactured in Italy by Aeromachi. The Penton was a re-labeled KTM, imported by John Penton of Lorraine, OH. In fairness, Penton was tremendously influential in both the design of the KTM and the growth of off-road motorcycle sport in America.
*6 In Land of Plenty, David Potter finds a competitive spirit a quintessential ingredient of the American persona; this same spirit seems present in dirt riders the world over.
*7 One period Kawasaki ad showed each member of the family unit—Mom, Dad, sister, brother—each on his or her own appropriately-sized trail bike.
*8 Travel continued to increase until about 1980, when maximum travel of about 12” front and rear become the norm.
*9 This trend continues to the present day. At this time in 2005, the “Big Four” Japanese manufacturers—together with Austrian KTM and perhaps now-Italian Husqvarna—are the only major makers of dirt bikes.
*10The American Motorcycle Association (AMA) was considered out-of-touch with the off-road movement and particularly tardy in their support of wildly-expanding motocross and enduro interest. Encumbered with the older leadership and inertia of a large and established organization, the AMA continued to actively promote (the established and more prohibitively expensive) Flat Track and Roadracing venues in the face of changing tastes, to the chagrin of many of its members and most motorcyclists at large.
*11 Several riders interviewed, now in positions where communications is a key aspect of their work, remarked that the quirky writing and editorial style of Dirt Bike influences their writing and general communications techniques to this day.
*12 Brand name sportswear such as “Thor,” “(MotoX) Fox,” “AXO” and “O’Neal” all have their roots in 1970s dirt bike products and protective wear.
*13 Although the movement was generally white male-dominated, minorities were very visible. Nationally, (Hawaiian) John DeSoto and (Asian) Chuck Sun were prominent racers. Local riders interviewed included a part-American Indian and nationally-ranked African-American ex-professional motocross racer Brian Thompson.