neils on wheels

My opinion Gizza5, is that we will have a WTC in 2020, though I hope that by then it will have undergone some change. If it has not, then as you I fear the worst. What would I like to see & why? A series that is financially more viable for a larger population and events that are more achievable for a larger population. Trials has always ben a participation sport more than a spectator activity and so I would like to see greater numbers of riders competing and greater variety in WTC events. Three things would help to achieve this. 1. A stronger world economy that would allow more riders to choose to contest the WTC. I wonder how many riders are prevented from riding due to economics and how many due to the severity of the event with respect to their skill? 2. A championship that runs over 9-10 months, not 4-5 months in the summer. This would allow trials with a range of terrain & conditions. The FIM would need to subside this, since I am sure every national body or promoter would want the July or August round. 3. Sections that are designed to be ridden according to the rules in force and that enable many riders to at least achieve a three in many sections. So many WTC sections are designed such that they are clean or five & so many current riders have learnt a no-stop riding style that also leads to a predominance of cleans or fives. The variety of terrain and conditions in point 2 would allow sections where grip need to be sought, as well as sections consisting of big grippy steps. If the sport does not evolve, or perhaps regress, in this manner, then I can see the WTC becoming an elite series for only a handful of the most capable & best funded riders, rather like the current indoor X Trial series. The moot point is which is harder to achieve: prosperity in the world economy or positive change in the FIM?

Thanks lowbrow

I have not seen any announcement of if/where X Trial highlights will be broadcast. A quick scan of the Motors TV schedule didn't reveal anything. Does anybody know if highlights will be televised?

I disagree. Japan is one of the few world rounds where we see wild card riders. As breagh has pointed out, it used to be the norm that the good national riders of any country would enter their own world round. This is now very rarely the case in most countries. Are the costs today higher in real terms than they were in the 70s or 80s? I don't know. Part of the issue may not be just the lack of money outside the top few riders, but the presence of real money & investment in support amongst the elite. I imagine Monster Energy sponsorship is worth somewhat more than Hammonds Sauce! If it requires a well equipped truck, mechanic, minder(s), team manager, catering, etc to be competitive then it is very difficult to break into this elite group. So a few well funded riders have all the support to train, practice & ride full time which amplifies the difference. Sections are then set out to challenge this elite group and are all but impossible for good national riders. I think this may be one factor explaining the complete stagnation in the top 5/6 riders in the world. Look how the likes of Brown & Wigg (guys that have won BTC & SSDT) have struggled at some world rounds. Nobody new has broken into this elite group for a good number of years and this in itself makes the championship less interesting.

I've just read the Bradford Boxing Day trial results on here. I see Jack Challoner was listed as riding a 4RT. Does anyone know; was this a one off ride? a deal he has for 2015? or possibly a clerical error in the results?

Hopefully this will work out well for Jack and hopefully the factory will be better able to support him than they did Eddie Karlsson. Steve will also be a good mentor for Jack. Jack will be well advised to learn all he can from him.

The specs in the brochure list some different components: Ice Hell apparently weighs 63Kg with magnesium engine cases, titanium exhaust 'manifold' & gold finish tech forks. Camo is listed as 66Kg with aluminium engine cases, stainless steel manifold and black finish tech forks.

dadof2, The point at which you start to restate my own comments back to me is the point at which we should conclude that there may be some things upon which we can agree.

Thank You Biff, however I suspect we may have an easier time agreeing on engineering issues than on spelling and the correct use of English grammar ;-) From looking at the internet photos, I'd suggest the steel lattice tubes would not be too vulnerable, maybe slightly more so than the simple diamond frames of Gas Gas and Sherco, but certainly less so than the integrated tank, aluminium structure of Beta and Jotagas.

I don't agree. 'Specific density' is meaningless, density is already a specific measure. I suspect you mean specific stiffness, which is derived by Young's Modulus / Density. If you calculate this for common Steel, Titanium and for that matter Aluminium, alloys, you will find all three have a specific modulus of ~ 25 x 10^6 m^2 s^-2 So in your first post you referred to lighter more rigid titanium, it is not. It is less dense and less stiff. In your second post you stated that for a given weight titanium is far stronger and far stiffer, it is not. Specific strength (in tension) of titanium is ~ 10% greater than steel, specific modulus, stiffness to weight ratio if you prefer, is much the same. Since I wasn't in the BSA comp shop fifty years ago, I do not know if they were seeking to optimise weight, strength or stiffness. Titanium would be best for lightness, steel for strength/stiffness. Balancing all three, I.e specific strength and/or stiffness you have to conclude that there would not be much difference and that geometry and working method would possibly have as much influence as material choice. Then there is how the frame 'feels'. Some of us prefer the flex of steel frames (e.g. Gas Gas) compared to the stiffness of aluminium frames (e.g. Beta). The difference in feel in these two frames is much less about the materials chosen than it is about the small section versus large section structures used in frame construction.

There is a certain dependence on the specific alloy, but in general titanium. Titanium's best property is its combination of light weight and resilience, hence it is such a good material for hardtail mountain bike frames, that is it allows some built in flex and thus has a more lively feel than equivalent steel, aluminium or carbon frames. Steel is a far superior material for motorbike frames, because it is just plain stronger.

Steel is stiffer than Titanium. Typical Young's modulus of chrome-moly steels is 180-200 GPa Typical Young's modulus of titanium alloys is 105-120 GPa

Jeroni Fajardo doesn't weigh much & he seems to ride alright. Doug Lampkin was heavier than all his rivals, but he still won seven consecutive world championships. I'd suggest that unless you are competing with Toni Bou, in which case power to weight ratio will assist you on the biggest steps, there is nothing to it but different bike set up.

It will be interesting to see if Dabill can retain his BTC on the Vertigo & if it has any impact on his WTC ranking.

That's a fair bit to have determined from watching a five minute video atomant! Now think of all the videos you've seen of Doug riding over the past two decades & read this statement back to yourself.

And Scorpa makes nine...

Let's see shall we. Gas Gas have just announced another cheaper, simpler Contact model. Gas Gas have tried this path before, as have others, I don't recall seeing many of them out & about.

A quick look at the brochure shows the white one (Ice Hell) lists as 63Kg, has the gold Tech forks & titanium exhaust 'manifold'. The green one (Camo) lists as 66Kg, has the black Tech forks & stainless steel exhaust.

I've just received the press release with a teaser image from G2F

It has the same stroke as a 250 but a smaller bore. It will feel lighter because the reciprocating mass in the 200 engine is lighter than that in a 300 and so generates a lower moment of inertia. That is, it requires less force (from rider input) to deflect from its current path (i.e. to steer). The effect is more pronounced in 125s, not just because of lighter engine internals but the shorter stroke means the mass rotates around a smaller radius and thus generates less force.

Thanks Woody

I'm asking now as I'm thinking of building a bike around some bits and documents that I have and want to ride some road based events. As to "why would they?" as a way to verify year of manufacture. Though of course I understand that this would be easily circumvented with engine swaps and transfer of frame numbers.

When checking machine eligibility do scrutineers check the year of manufacture on a V5 document? There are clearly plenty of D14 engined 4 speed Bantams being ridden in Pre 65 trials, when those bikes were originally 1968 or later. So how is this trick pulled off? By putting a later engine in an earlier donor bike, who's V5 is of the appropriate year? I am not so concerned in this post about parts eligibility so much as ensuring the machine's documentation is in order.

You can please some of the people all of the time and you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time. That is the dilemma of modern trials. For every post on here about the demise of modern trials and how there is no money or funding for promising riders, there is another post that doesn't want to see any change or forward thinking. The City Trial is not my thing, but then I've been around trials & mountain bikes for over 30 years, so don't need much persuading. I am however completely in favour of the City Trial and similar events for the promotion they give to our sport. Toni Bou and Doug Lampkin putting on a show in front of Saturday shoppers, what's not to like?...Perhaps I've just convinced myself it is my sort of thing after all!

I believe it is an accessory to buy separately, like any other long ride seat. Doesn't look like it has a built in fuel tank, but handy for your butties!