The line, "we aren't talking about bikes that need to pass emission standards" scares me a bit. Personally, I've never ridden on a motocross track and don't intend to make a habit of it, but I do ride in the forest using MX bikes. A lot of people do. While it may seem silly to make a racing bike keep up with emission needs because it doesn't apply to the tracks it's designed for, I think the non-track-riders represent a fairly large part of the market. I'm not sure if there are emission standards for forest riding, but I've heard that in California, you're not even allowed to take an MX bike on trails or into the woods. It's either got to be turned off, or on a track. Why is that? It might be a concern for safety, because MX bikes tend to be fast, but I think it's a push to get the evil, baby-seal-killing two-stroke motocrossers off the trails and replaced with nice fluffy XR250s and such. Besides, even when you take the law out of it, I think that making a bike that's AT LEAST comparable to a 4T in emissions is the right thing to do. If we can do it in a simple package (ex nay on the injection) whilst increasing performance, so much the better.
I'm not trying to imply that you're against clean bikes or that we need to abandon performance in the name of pleasing the hippies, but I just want to point out that our beloved two-strokes have done some pretty serious damage to Southeast Asia, and a lot of that pollution gets blown 'round the world. We don't want to be making any more of that if we don't have to, especially when there are governing bodies that have shown a history of out-right banning things that hurt environmental quality. Direct Injection has been shown to improve the two-stroke in this category dramatically, as I'm sure you guys already know. That makes it an option for the future, but not the only one.
Just thought I'd throw that out there.