alan bechard

Looks like I am in the minority, matter of fact I think alone in wanting to start at the bottom with the numbers, but I guess I see the problem just in the couple of posts above this. Max wants to make Expert #1 and Mark has the class above expert (champ, Master) #1 Why do folks want to make the 1st class the top, are you climbing to be #1 or are you starting at the first step? Just curious I guess as I seem to be the only one seeing it the way I do, but I see having a similar problem as soon as you cross clubs with 5 / 6 lines.

Well, my view of reality is that the NATC is doing what they set out to do. And my limited dealing's with them, tell me that there is not much I am going to do to change them. The NATC have no interest that I can discern in dealing with local club issues. The USMTA was created to "fill that gap". Is USMTA doing enough? I don't know. I have not put the effort into it that I would like to say I should, and I imagine there are many others out there the same way. The USMTA is US, not Them, or they or some abstract group of folks, but us, the interested trials riders trying our best to effect some positive changes. I would say if you want to see more done on a particular issue, step up to the plate, volunteer to be the head of that committe and make it happen. I do not think there is anyone in the USMTA that will not applaud as you take a lead slot.

The only problem I see with that Frank is that many clubs will not have that "top" class. (STRA did not a couple years ago) So (edited) some clubs would have #2-#6. All clubs will have a "novice" or starter class.

Nationals are run by the NATC. I do not believe that they have any inclination (nor do I personally see a need) to change their class structure. As a sidebar, there are folks on here, Mich and NSAGM that believe there needs to be additional 125 classes in the national system but I would prefer not to stray down that path here. How will we implement this. As the USMTA stands up, that is one of it's missions, to provide some structure and uniformity to US trials at the club level. I believe that we can beat this ailing horse pretty well here, and present a submission to the USMTA that they will follow. The USMTA will then provide the information and hopefully act as a unifying body for club trials across the US. They will also be providing sample rulebooks and guidelines for start up clubs to follow along with. It is really then up to the local clubs, if they are concerned about following a national standard or not. There will be some clubs that will want nothing to do with it, the words, "we have always done it this way" will come up at their meetings and they will continue to run whatever classes that they desire. There will be several clubs that I believe will treat it like they treat the NATC trials rules. Well, that is the standard that is set forth for trials in the US and we can comply with that. (much like the white ribbon thing the last couple of years) Then I think there are some clubs that will sit in the middle, they will wait and see if other clubs adopt to the "standard" and then later possibly switch over themselves. The point really, is there is no standard for a club to follow. This is a task that the USMTA is bitten into, but really, it takes the leg work of you and me and the folks on this board (as well as a ton of folks that could care less about computers) to make it a reality. We have to step up and come up with a consensus if we want to see it happen. Otherwise, we can sit around and moan about how somebody, anybody and everybody should do it, except NOBODY actually did...

Loved that one Ish, just shows how universal this stuff is. OK, back to the class thing though. 1. lets not throw the net too far. We cannot seem to agree on 6 class names, lets not try and include WR level stuff as well. The handful of people that it would be applicable too, will know what class they need to ride. 2. Lets not go too far either, I am not trying to talk about kids, vintage, Womens, handicapped, Sr's etc. Let's try and narrow the focus down and come to some form of agreement on the "core" classes. I would propose that most clubs run about 6 "lines" through the sections. By line, I mean a designated way to go through a section or a split. I am not saying that SA = A is a seperate line. I will say that most clubs have about 6, just play along for a minute, even if you do not particularly agree. Line 1 OK, I am starting at Novice, beginner, starter, the first folks that have control of the bike, but certainly not mastery. These folks obstacles consist of logs and obstacles generally under 12' or so, lots of tight turns, no clutch is usually needed to negotioate their sections. There is plenty of runout room and care is taken to avoid placing them in situations that if they "froze" on the controls, they would not drop off a cliff or the like. Line 2 Some clubs will call this Int, some Sportsman. Little bit more control than line 1. Able to control a wheelie and have good placement of the front wheel. Can do slighltly larger obstacles but still need some runout room. Line 3 Middle of the road kind of guy, many club riders ride this class. Obstacles are getting larger, some things like double blips are handy / needed to get through. Understands where his wheels are at all time's and has some balancing and clutch control. Line 4 This is what I would call an Advanced rider, could succesfully complete a NATC national in the sportsman line, experienced rider with good bike control, able to execute advanced trials manuevers when needed. Some ability to hop etc. is advantageous. Line 5 I would call it expert. Often the top class in a club. Able to compete in ES or E lines at an NATC national. Able to conquer large steps and obstacles, able to use suspension, throttle and clutch to overcome difficult situations. These guys the Trialsmasters are not looking for safety so much, they should be able to confidently navigate difficult terrain and plan for unforseen events. Line 6 Champ, master, top dog. The average trialsmaster sets sections for this class by tying the ribbon around a rock and throwing it on a hillside he is not confident walking on.... Guys that are competing on the NATC "Pro" level (or above) There are a ton of other "classes" out there, but I believe very few different "lines" And maybe that is the distinction that should be made. We need to try and make the lines consistent, in a consistent order from club to club. Now if we could just agree that 1 starts at the bottom or the top and who we are going to cover.... mabye if we could agree to that, we can hammer down class names a bit.

That makes sense. Thanks.

Actually Ish, I was trying to do that and could not figure out how to cross from one post to another. I saw that and thought, Heck, we cannot agree here, I doubt we can get the clubs to agree. Maybe it is just a moot point.

Actually, I must say, she was very nice, it took a bit of help from Martin and Adriana to get the translations, and the memory Jogging, but it went very well once the context was there.

Yes, I did..

I doubt that one would be effectively repairable by welding. Might be worth a try, but I would be concerned of deforming the bore.

Fair enough, you must not ride D-4,,,, By Advanced, I would mean a rider that could negotiate the Support lines in an NATC national. In most clubs the class one or two levels below the top line. As in an STRA Advanced rider Champ - riders such as The LeRiche brothers Expert- riders such as Brock Sattlemire and Bill Ibsen riding ES or E NATC lines Advanced Sportsman Intermediate Novice Would that help to quantify what I am referring too as an "Advanced" rider?

So you are telling me Barcota that everyone that signs up at your guys events just comes up out of the blue, normally riding in a different area with different class names, you describe the obstacles and they know the appropriate class to ride? You are the Man is all I have to say. Heck, I struggle trying to decide if folks I ride with should start at Novice or Intermediate. So BarCota, what classes do you guys use. And on edit, If you would be so kind as to go to my post on describing an Advanced rider and fill it in, as several of us seem to not be able to define it. Sounds like you have it nailed.

Thanks Mark, As food for thought, I was looking at how the unicycle folks do their "skill levels and how they are quantified. Might be worth a read here if you are interested in this subject. http://www.unicycling.org/usa/levels/

I think if you read back through these posts though, I can sense the difficulty that NATC (or anyone) would have in trying to get the naming unified. I think most will agree that the posters here genuinely want to see it happen, and have no agenda to keep, yet after several days we are still not in agreement. I can see if this got presented to the NATC (or other governing body) that had a meeting of one weekend a year, that it would be extremely difficult to get a consensus. Reading through again, it reinforces to me, that maybe the best thing to do is to not use the "Sportsman" term at all. Let that be an NATC specific thing. We are in agreement about most, but we need a consensus to move forward and speak with our clubs, although after speaking to folks at the WR, I am somewhat convinced that more people are on here reading this and thinking about it then are posting on it. I think we can use the term Intermediate with a 5 or 6 class scenario, I doubt many will worry that it is truly not the precise middle. For those of you out there going "repetitive", yes, many times this stuff is, but sometimes that is what it takes to reach a consensus. Mark, is there a reason other then the NATC you would want to use Sportsman? (it is also listed in the rules as a "support" class) And yes Mark, the Format's that various clubs used could still be used. (at one point I proposed last year, or maybe the year before just numbering the classes 1-6 then letting every club attach their own names.) Then when you signed up you rode, interocitating guduldinator in your club, and when the sign up lady looked at you weird you went, oh, line 4... Wayne, I think that most clubs are AMA for the insurance coverage provided. I understand that some clubs out west have still been able to procure reasonable private insurance, the experience I have heard from most clubs is that AMA is pretty much the only game in town willing to support this with insurance.

In a discussion elsewhere on here, we are speaking of the various class names that are used, and hopefully working towards some standardisation. Some people feel it is important, and some not but no matter which side you are on, most folks should be able to give their take on this related, but slightly seperate subject. What in your opinion, put into words, makes a rider an "Advanced" class rider. The basis of my opinion is found here in the STRA rules section 3 http://setrialsriders.org/STRA_Rules/STRA%...book%202005.pdf Unfortunately though, it basicly say's someone that can ride a National Support line. I would like to put something more into words, that someone from outside trials could relate too, or maybe at least someone familiar with trials, but without having been to a NATC event, can relate too. Something along the lines of "should be able to balance and move front and rear wheels through hopping" "Should be able to successfully cross logs of 3' diameter" "should be able to accurately place their wheels and know the location of their rear wheel tracks" I guess I am not sure how to quantify it and put it into words, so I am asking for your assistance. If you could put your thoughts here, or maybe it is already laid out and explained somewhere on the web in a manner that you feel is exceptional, link to it for the rest of us to see. Thanks for your time.

Dan, tried to call, think the #s I have are for TTC cell? Anyway left a message there. I think I called your old cell # because whoever answered had no idea who you where OK, so I feel dated. Give me a call you get a chance. 931-551-8129 or cell 931-801-7921 And yes brother Ringo, you can always call as well Ridge, I like the Clubman idea, the only thing that I think may be a sticker with some clubs is they want Champ (I tried a year or two ago to get the STRA to go to PRO in line with NATC and it would not fly, Although not sure if Master would have had the same problems? the principal problem with Pro is it implies that there is Money being made.) I think your comment on NATC is very relevant and accurate for this discussion, as well as maybe just avoiding the "Sportsman" term all together. I think the "clubman" term readily identifies many of the riders in that class as well. I would suggest that we present the 5 basic classes as Ridge has put forth Expert Advanced Intermediate Clubman Novice As the primary classes used for competition. Then as an addendum (or some such crud) make notes that the suggested names for other optional classes be Master, youth, Womens,Sr., Vet etc. etc. But only mention these in that they are presented as options that a club can exercise if they have the desire and the support to operate these. Dan brings up several excellent points. I think we will have more input from the New USMTA as things settle out after this past WR. I know I should be doing more to get my piece of the USMTA puzzle put into place then I have, not sure how others have been doing. I also know that many of the principals have been deeply involved in making the WR the success that it was. We are being handed an opportunity, complete with timeline, to present this (and other items) to the AMA. I believe that we should take the approach with this that we have taken with many of the programs we have implemented where I work. The basic motto I try and use and apply is. If I make it easy for the customer (soldier, at work) to do the right thing, they will not do the wrong thing. I think it is the same here, if we make it easy for local level clubs to follow this lead, make it as painless as possible to follow the rules and fall in line with the other clubs in the US, then they will. If we come up with a mass of convuluted rules, and edicts that say they will, or we will punish them, then most folks I know will just not worry about it and go ahead and do whatever they would like. We also have to bear in mind that this will not occur quickly. As Ridge and others well know, Trials riders in particular are not quick to change. This has to be a task that is approached patiently making small changes and adjustments along the way. It is also greatly effected by various clubs schedules, for instance FTA is mid season I believe in Dec, where many other clubs are at the end of their seasons. I would imagine that there are some various timelines for different clubs around the country just based on climate. This of itself will lengthen out the process when you ask clubs to make a change like this. No one would want to change mid season. Will start another topic on what is an Advanced rider. Does anyone know how to view past years AMA rules on line? I am certain that, that used to be the standard, but believe it was eliminated in the rewrite. Not sure how to check myself though. Added on edit. I know this sounds stupid, but I had never thought of intermediate as the "middle" class. Even though I would agree that is exactly what the name implies.

Because the NATC calls it "Sportsman"? Is that what you are referring too? I believe they changed the rules this past year. Current rules are here. http://www.ama-cycle.org/rulebooks/supps/2006/NATC.pdf It used to say you had to be an advanced or better rider, but it no longer say's that, to ride in a support class. Had never really thought about that consistency (or I guess more accurately lack of consistency) between the NATC names and local club names. I guess I always referred to the lower class at Nationals as "support" lines though, not sportsman. Not sure what point would carry the most weight, past that we should be consistent, and as you pointed out, should probably be consistent with NATC documentation as well.

Actually Mark, you just blew the order. And the NATC say's that you must be an Advanced or Better rider to compete. Will go hunting for the citation. Which would make the below correct (As Ridge laid out) Champ, Master, Pro (Whatever your club desires, if they desire) Expert Advanced Intermediate Sportsman Novice We have to be able to do it consistently here to sell it consistently to our respective clubs.

I meant a little bit more like pound it out when it looks like the picture here. http://www.trialscentral.com/forums/index....4164&hl=exhaust

But the point is Mark, you are not limited to just those 5 classes. Your club use those 5 classes as a base, and they leave the order of those classes consistent with regards to severity. Then you add in whatever you guys think your guys are, maybe one easier such as Novice B that TI does, or maybe one harder Such as Champ that STRA does. The trick would be, that if you are 90% of the riders out there, you would fit into one of these classes, then you could go club to club and know that you are at the same relative position of difficulty.

ROTFLMFAO

Just push it out from the inside, and weld in the rivnuts,,,, well, I guess at that point they are weld nuts,,,, and viola,,, That is WALLA to my redneck freinds, you have an upgraded, repacked, ready to go muffler........ You should see / hear the Beemer tank I got to do for Brian...

I know where you are coming from Steve, but I sure do not want to be up there where I saw some of the catchers at the WR. It crossed my mind as I watched a minder / catcher wrap his wrist into the support rope, what would happen if he got a firm grip on the bike and his roped in wrist caught the quick snap of rider, bike and himself as they all slipped on that hill....... I only need to look at Jessie's thumb to know. I think you either have to eliminate that type of risk (which I do not see) or enforce the rules that exist (which we can do, but I just need to set better for it)

But because it failed in the past does not doom it in the future, maybe the time was not quite right at that point? OK, Frank has done the STRA Dabnabit, could you do the two CA ones. While there are certainly going to be other clubs with "tween" classes, they could still follow along with the basic 6 and add theirs in. Then of course, there are always those other classes not covered by this, things such as womens, youth, cadets, sr., Vintage. Just leave those too the side, and clubs will continue to do them, but if we could at least standardize the "core" classes, it would be one more bite of the elephant. (for those that do not know the expression, the question is, how do you eat an elephant? The answer is one bite at a time.)

I asked Lane and he said that did not matter.