Key Highlights
-
Bittersweet: Jeremy Martin closed out his legendary career with a win on home soil. He didn’t come close to setting the fastest lap, but his median time was over a second clear of the field. Smooth, controlled, and classic Martin one last time.
-
Super Lawrence Bros: Jett and Hunter put on a Moto 2 masterclass. They both ran over two seconds per lap faster than Sexton and scored 90+ in LITPro consistency. Across 34 total laps in both motos, the Lawrences held the fastest time on 31 of them.
-
Stay in the States: Mikkel Haarup is making his case loud and clear. He logged the second-fastest lap in Moto 1 and snagged a podium in Moto 2. His intensity is increasing and he's not far off Deegan's pace.
-
The Field's Getting Deeper: Just 1.06 seconds separated the median lap times of the top five in 250 Moto 1. Haarup, Hammaker, Shimoda, and Deegan all had race-winning pace, but when it counts, Deegan and Shimoda are the closers. Deegan only logged the third-fastest lap of the moto behind Hammaker and Haarup.
450 Analysis
In a nutshell, here’s what we learned at Spring Creek: no one is touching the Lawrence brothers. I don’t see anyone else taking a moto win for the rest of the season. Sexton is off, something’s clearly not right with Tomac, and no one else is close to their pace. More 250 riders were near the Lawrence’s lap times in Moto 1 than any of the 450 field. (Yes, I know the 250s go first on a better track). Jett tipping it over gave us another fun comeback ride, and in Moto 2, the brothers gapped third-place Sexton by nearly 50 seconds. So yeah, they’re becoming untouchable.
Track Breakdown:
The track map above shows who clocked the fastest average sector times in each motos.
The sector map makes the case. Outside of the Lawrences, only two riders managed to grab fastest sector times, both in arguably the shortest sector of the track. The rest? All Lawrence Bros. Jett clearly backed off in Moto 1 once he reached second. His lap chart shows a pace drop of two seconds on Lap 13, and another two seconds on Lap 14. Even so, Hunter had arguably his best 450 moto to date.
Moto 2 was the nail in the coffin. The difference between Jett and Hunter was tenths of a second per lap. The gap between them and the rest of the field? Whole seconds. Over a 35-minute moto, that adds up fast.
As for the track, S4 (the downhill off Mt. Martin) was the toughest sector in every moto based on consistency scores. That drop is over 500 feet, and as fatigue builds, riders clearly ease up. The infamous sand whoops (S2) were tamed this year, and it showed. They weren’t the deciding factor like in years past. Don't believe me? Check out the stats from Spring Creek last year where Sexton decimated Hunter in the whoops to win the race.
450 Moto 1:
| SEG | Rider | Avg. Time |
Fastest Time (All) |
Sector Consistency (All) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | H. Lawrence | 17.75 | 17.19 | 83.4 |
| 2 | H. Lawrence | 28.12 | 26.58 | 72.3 |
| 3 | H. Lawrence | 40.63 | 39.67 | 77.3 |
| 4 | H. Lawrence | 16.27 | 15.62 | 67.8 |
| 5 | R. Hampshire | 16.47 | 15.89 | 76.8 |
450 Moto 2:
| SEG | Rider | Avg. Time |
Fastest Time (All) |
Sector Consistency (All) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | J. Lawrence | 17.44 | 16.77 | 78.5 |
| 2 | J. Lawrence | 27.52 | 26.78 | 79.9 |
| 3 | J. Lawrence | 40.44 | 39.87 | 85.8 |
| 4 | H. Lawrence | 16.10 | 15.62 | 74.0 |
| 5 | C. Sexton | 16.34 | 16.00 | 81.7 |
Lap Time Breakdown:
The track crew didn’t rip the surface as deep this year, which made for more consistent racing. The lap data backs it up. The median lap time difference between Motos 1 and 2 was just two-tenths of a second. That’s practically nothing. And out of 34 timed laps across both motos, the Lawrences clocked the fastest lap on 31 of them.
Moto 1 Fast Laps (17 Timed Laps)
- H. Lawrence: 9
- J. Lawrence: 5
- Sexton: 3
Class Average Consistency: 81.4
Class Median Consistency: 87.6
Moto 2 Fast Laps (17 Timed Laps)
- J. Lawrence: 10
- H. Lawrence: 9
Class Average Consistency: 74.1
Class Median Consistency: 85.7
450 Moto 1 Analysis
| RIDER | Average Time |
Median Time |
Fastest Time |
Lap 99 | Consistency |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H. Lawrence | 1:58.93 | 1:58.58 | 1:56.67 | 1:56.08 | 90.0 |
| J. Lawrence | 1:59.41 | 1:58.80 | 1:55.72 | 1:54.98 | 85.9 |
| C. Sexton | 2:00.10 | 1:59.92 | 1:57.54 | 1:56.55 | 88.0 |
| R. Hampshire | 2:00.88 | 2:00.32 | 1:58.16 | 1:57.46 | 89.3 |
| M. Stewart | 2:02.52 | 2:01.62 | 2:00.37 | 1:57.98 | 94.3 |
Rider's sorted by median lap time.
Top Performances:
Jett had the best lap of the moto, over a second faster than Hunter’s. Their median times were nearly identical, but Jett clearly backed it down. Still, Hunter deserves credit. Their riding is elevated because of this sibling "rivalry". Together, they’re pulling away from the field.
LITPro 10-Lap Consistency:
Malcolm Stewart is creeping back toward the top 5. Supercross is still his strength, but the sand whoops at Millville woke something up. He had the best consistency score of the top 5—94.3 compared to Hunter’s 90.
Lap 99 Analysis:
More proof Jett might’ve let Hunter take Moto 1? Jett’s theoretical best lap (sum of sector bests) was over a second faster than Hunter’s. His actual fastest lap still beat Hunter’s Lap 99 by over a quarter second.
450 Moto 2 Analysis
| RIDER | Average Time |
Median Time |
Fastest Time |
Lap 99 | Consistency |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| J. Lawrence | 1:58.35 | 1:58.11 | 1:56.39 | 1:55.17 | 90.1 |
| H. Lawrence | 1:58.77 | 1:58.39 | 1:56.42 | 1:56.05 | 90.4 |
| C. Sexton | 2:01.01 | 2:00.94 | 1:56.45 | 1:56.49 | 78.1 |
| R. Hampshire | 2:02.66 | 2:01.87 | 1:59.06 | 1:58.14 | 86.1 |
| V. Guillod | 2:02.98 | 2:03.15 | 2:00.51 | 2:00.05 | 89.3 |
Rider's sorted by median lap time.
Top Performances:
I hate to keep pounding the same drum, but this is getting ridiculous. Whether you sort by average or median, they were two full seconds faster than anyone else. Sexton did match Jett’s top time, but only twice. He showed flashes and then faded.
LITPro 10-Lap Consistency:
Yep, more Lawrence love. Both brothers averaged 90+ consistency scores, faster and smoother than everyone else. So to beat them, first you have to match their pace for 35 minutes, next you have to make zero mistakes.
Lap 99 Analysis:
We had some timing issues in Moto 2, especially in S2 and S3. Look at Sexton’s Lap 99. It doesn’t line up with his fastest lap when you break it down by sector. That said, even with those hiccups, no one was close to the Lawrence pace.
250 Analysis
It’s a weird thing to say, but Haiden Deegan being banged up is giving us the best racing of the year. Even not at 100%, he’s still a threat every moto and walked away with the overall again. Deegan vs. Shimoda is turning into a legit rivalry. But Shimoda’s shot at the overall vanished the moment he lost his rear brake in Moto 2.
But... JEREMY FREAKIN' MARTIN. Capping his career with a win in his final moto at his home track was bittersweet. That’s how you ride into the sunset. After years of injuries, Martin reminded everyone that when he’s healthy, he's still one of the best to ever do it.
Track Breakdown:
The track map above shows who clocked the fastest average sector times in each motos.
The sector map from both motos shows just how competitive this 250 field is. Moto 1 was a dogfight. Shimoda and Deegan traded sectors lap after lap, each flexing strengths in different parts of the track. Hammaker shows up in the data too. He didn’t finish, but he completed nearly every lap and absolutely lit up Sector 3. Hopefully he bounces back quick, because a three-way showdown with him, Shimoda, and Deegan could make for an epic close to the season.
In Moto 2, it looked like Martin would own more sectors, but it was a group effort at the top. Haarup, Shimoda, and Deegan all showed flashes. Shimoda still killed the whoops even with no rear brake, and Deegan was fearless down Mt. Martin. You could make a strong case that Deegan let Martin take the win to secure the overall and put more distance between himself and Shimoda in the points.
250 Moto 1:
| SEG | Rider | Avg. Time |
Fastest Time (All) |
Sector Consistency (All) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | H. Deegan | 17.89 | 17.28 | 85.7 |
| 2 | J. Shimoda | 27.79 | 26.90 | 79.9 |
| 3 | S. Hammaker | 41.01 | 39.82 | 84.6 |
| 4 | H. Deegan | 16.03 | 15.10 | 74.1 |
| 5 | J. Shimoda | 15.98 | 15.44 | 85.9 |
250 Moto 2:
| SEG | Rider | Avg. Time |
Fastest Time (All) |
Sector Consistency (All) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | M. Haarup | 18.15 | 17.24 | 76.5 |
| 2 | J. Shimoda | 28.88 | 27.70 | 81.3 |
| 3 | J. Martin | 42.27 | 41.48 | 83.7 |
| 4 | H. Deegan | 16.09 | 14.99 | 67.6 |
| 5 | H. Deegan | 16.62 | 15.96 | 79.2 |
Lap Time Breakdown:
Unlike the 450s, the 250s fell off hard in Moto 2, expected with the smaller bikes. The first moto was a perfect track, and it shows. Both average and median lap times dropped by over two seconds in Moto 2.
Deegan still had the pace to win, but with him not pushing to the limit, other riders had space to shine. Across 33 total timed laps, fast laps were split much more evenly than in the 450 class.
Moto 1 Fast Laps (17 Timed Laps)
- Deegan: 8
- Shimoda: 5
- Haarup: 2
- Hammaker, Mosiman: 1
Class Average Consistency: 80.1
Class Median Consistency: 87.4
Moto 2 Fast Laps (16 Timed Laps)
- Martin, Deegan, Kitchen: 4
- Haarup: 2
- Shimoda: 2
Class Average Consistency: 79.2
Class Median Consistency: 84.2
250 Moto 1 Analysis
| RIDER | Average Time |
Median Time |
Fastest Time |
Lap 99 | Consistency |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H. Deegan | 1:58.99 | 1:58.77 | 1:56.71 | 1:56.22 | 89.0 |
| J. Shimoda | 1:59.12 | 1:59.10 | 1:57.50 | 1:56.78 | 92.7 |
| M. Mosiman | 2:01.65 | 1:59.55 | 1:57.44 | 1:56.40 | 88.6 |
| J. Martin | 1:59.87 | 1:59.68 | 1:56.80 | 1:56.43 | 83.0 |
| M. Haarup | 2:00.57 | 1:59.83 | 1:56.20 | 1:56.98 | 87.4 |
Rider's sorted by median lap time.
Top Performances:
Look at how tight those median times are. Just a second separating the top 5. Deegan still had the slight edge, but Haarup set the second-fastest lap of the race. He’s trending way up and looks more comfortable every round. The pace is there. He's making the argument to state stateside.
LITPro 10-Lap Consistency:
Shimoda was rock solid again. His 92.7 score was the best in the top five. HRC clearly has their bikes dialed for outdoors.
Lap 99 Analysis:
All five top riders posted theoretical “Lap 99” times in the 1:56s. These guys are within tenths of each other at their best. Any one of them could win a moto on the right day.
250 Moto 2 Analysis
| RIDER | Average Time |
Median Time |
Fastest Time |
Lap 99 | Consistency |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| J. Martin | 2:02.59 | 2:02.19 | 2:00.34 | 1:59.24 | 89.5 |
| H. Deegan | 2:02.71 | 2:02.48 | 1:59.41 | 1:58.62 | 85.2 |
| L. Kitchen | 2:03.35 | 2:03.17 | 2:01.67 | 2:00.09 | 94.8 |
| G. Marchbanks | 2:03.62 | 2:03.27 | 2:01.71 | 2:00.48 | 93.4 |
| J. Swoll | 2:03.63 | 2:03.36 | 1:59.66 | 1:59.59 | 81.0 |
Rider's sorted by median lap time.
Top Performances:
Jeremy Martin used every bit of his Spring Creek experience to take that win. He never once looked like he was pushing over the edge, just smooth, smart laps. His median lap time was more than a second faster than Deegan’s, and he didn’t even touch the fastest lap charts.
Big props to Jalek Swoll and the entire Triumph crew. Swoll’s riding with a torn UCL in his thumb and still clocking top-5 lap times. Four Triumph riders in the top 10 overall is no fluke.
LITPro 10-Lap Consistency:
Kitchen’s up-and-down season continues. Sixth place in the moto doesn’t tell the story. He had the third-best median lap time and the highest consistency score (94.8) in the top five. Marchbanks had nearly identical stats. They both outpaced Haarup despite Mikkel finishing on the podium.
Lap 99 Analysis:
More proof that Deegan managed the pace: his Lap 99 time was nearly a full second faster than anyone else. His actual fastest lap? Another full second clear. He played it smart and took the overall.