michaelmoore

David, I couldn't find anything at the ITSA website on that. Link? That bike doesn't look much different other than the upper rear damper mounts. Long rear travel (over 4" wheel movement) doesn't do me any good for an AHRMA Modern Classic bike. I may try and press the silentbloc bushings out tomorrow and see what that leaves me with. Maybe a brass bushing conversion won't be too much bother if Kawaski got the pivot tubes bored on the same center. Right now those silentblocs are looking pretty ugly. But getting the hubs off in the post comes first. When I do that I may run out to my storage space and pick up the Sherpa T front fork assy to bring home to ponder. cheers, Michael

It varies as the square of the radius, so the material right next to the crankshaft isn't doing much. Experimenting does require that you have ready access to a lathe or mill and you'll probably want to make up a faux crankshaft arbor to mount the flywheel to so you can run it between centers on a lathe and reduce the likelihood of machining it eccentrically. And if you take too much off you've got to figure out how to put it back. It wouldn't hurt to do a static balance test after you have done a bit of shaving away at the flywheel. cheers, Michael

David, since your bike still has the silentbloc bushings (as does mine) I'd advise you to take a look at those. It may be just because the rubber is 30+ years old but the swing arm action on mine (no dampers, just the bare frame and swing arm) could easily be classed as "mostly seized up." You should pull the dampers and maybe drop the rear wheel out so you don't have that masking things) and see how readily your swing arm moves through the normal arc. If it is like mine, the answer is "not at all readily" and that seems like it can't be a good thing. I'll spend a little time tomorrow and clean things up and check it again, but the center bush on the silentblocs should be (at 50+lbf/ft of torque on the nut) completely stationary with all movement coming from the rubber squidging about. At half that torque on my torque wrench the difficulty of getting the swing arm to move around is not at all encouraging. I'll also look to see if there are some standard needle bearing races with the right OD that could be used with some custom bronze bushings and I'll post that info. I'd much rather control the rear wheel with springs on the dampers than with some rubber of an unknown spring rate (and possibly a very high rate if the rubber has lost its resiliancy). cheers, Michael

Dave, you always want to keep an eye on what the competition is doing, and borrow good ideas when you can. Just maybe not to the level that happened in F1 this last year. If the KT is within a hair of the Bultaco measurements then I might be able to improve things by making minor changes like foot peg position etc without messing with raking/new triple clamps. I do normally take a tape measure and caliper and notebook to races/events as you never know what interesting things you might learn. majestyman340, the frame is stock at this time. You might be able to see that the fork tubes are pulled up in the triple clamps about .5-.75". I just took the caps off to collapse the forks and then loosened the clamps and let things slide up until the fender was almost hitting the exhaust pipe. I think that at 13.5" the Fox Trials Shox are a little longer than stock, but I don't have a set of stockers to measure. I also trimmed the fork stop just a little and since all the bikes are at full lock that may make it seem a bit steeper. I've talked to Bob in the past and bought a few small parts from him. He had one of the big bore kits left at that time, but the price was a lot higher than I could comfortably consider paying. I have looked at some different Wiseco pistons and found one that would be perfect for a bore in that area, except that it has some ports in the side of the piston skirt that interfere with ports in the cylinder. I have done very little with two strokes so I'm not sure if that could be worked around. I think that ordering a batch of 20 pistons made without that port would probably leave me with several lifetimes of extra pistons as I don't see there being a huge demand for a KT big bore kit these days. An RM370A piston might work (with a spacer as I think the wrist pin is a bit lower) but those seem pretty uncommon and are another of the many pistons that Wiseco has discontinued. If I could find a couple of suitable piston assys I do have a spare cylinder I could mess with. But right now the KT runs well enough that with a bit of extra flywheel I think it will be fine for me. I'd rather put engine development time into my TTY400 project. David, stainless tends to work harden and I think the stock spokes may actually be better as they are just galvanized steel. But they don't seem happy to deal with water and we do occasionally get to ride in some. Stainless with aluminum nipples can last a long time. But I may have to make a point of removing the tires after rides with water crossings to dry everything out. Your comment about the "top-heavy Bultaco" is interesting. I don't recall Bultaco engines being particularly light weight, especially with the heavier flywheels, so I wonder if it is a slightly higher engine position on the KT that contributes to that top heaviness? I need to weigh my Sherpa T fork assy. The KT parts seem like they could be several pounds lighter and that might be another contributing factor. The frame and swing arm can probably come down about 10 lbf at the most with a replacement frame. Getting a bike significantly lighter means chasing ounces all over once you've (often expensively) picked the low-hanging fruit where you can make big savings. "stationary balancing" is probably the big difference on the gearing as AHRMA vintage is "no stop". cheers, Michael

Thanks for the clarification. cheers, Michael

David, since you sound like you've got the stock steel spokes and nipples pay attention to them after that water section. I was able to get some of the nipples off the KT wheels today so I could send sample spokes with the hubs, but things were really ugly inside the rim. I'll be going with stainless steel spokes and aluminum nipples for the new rims. I looked and my bike does run the stock sprocket sizes (15/52 IIRC). I'm not sure I've felt much need for lower gearing in the kinds of novice sections we have, though I think there would be less need if it had more flywheel mass. It runs slow enough, it just is easy for it to stall if it hits a rock or branch or something that slows it down any when at the lowest possible RPM. Is the reason you changed the clutch leverage because you ride using the clutch a lot? The clutch seems like a typical Japanese dirt bike -- reasonably light. cheers, Michael

Old trials fanatic both the KT flywheel and one out of a TT500 Yamaha shoulr appear to have a steel outer casing. They definitely aren't brass (I can remember having a brass mag flywheel on a Ducati single, but it has been too many years for me to remember what my 1974 Sherpa T had) and someone who turned a TT flywheel to lighten if for a racer told me it was a steel that wouldn't chip, just make long strings of razor-sharp swarf so that he'd have to stop pretty frequently to break it off with some pliers. If you want to maximize the weight within a given diameter than brass is certainly what you'd use instead of steel, but it isn't a lot heavier. I just looked at prices at an online metal merchant and the prices for the same size (3" x .250" wall tube) in steel vs brass are $1.53 vs $12.06 per inch, so brass is almost 8X as expensive. They also don't go big enough in the brass tube they stock to make a ring for the flywheel. cheers, Michael

If you want pictures, here's one taken at a trial (before I built the new exhaust). The tank I built isn't as nice looking as the stocker, but it is lighter and rust-free: Four KTs at a regional trial seemed like an event worth recording. They owner of the bike right behind mine rides the two line and seems reasonably happy with his bike, though when I let him ride mine after I built the pipe and did the other engine mods he did prefer the power of my bike. I have two friends here in the area that have KT250s that are nice and original and have all the lighting kit (one of those is for sale as it looks like the person is going to stick with roadracing and not do any trials after all), and I've heard from a fellow in Norway who has one with all the lights. I didn't try retarding the timing until after I did the porting and cylinder head modifications, but it is quite a bit retarded from the stock position now. I've been looking through some old magazines today, and generally the KT250 seems to have gotten the nod as being best overall (not necessarily by much) Japanese trialer. Pretty cool seeing all those full page inside cover ads for Sherpa Ts too! Since the mid 70s Bultacos were 27 degrees and 76mm ground trail, and the KT250 is 26.5 degrees and 75mm ground trail (though with a just slighly shorter wheelbase) I'm not sure why the KT doesn't handle pretty much just like a Bul. I'm going to put together a chart of all the dimensions/weights from those 70s roadtests and add that to the KT page on my website in the near future. Today I got a few sample spokes pulled out of the wheels and then chopped the rest so I'm hoping to get the hubs sent off tomorrow to Buchanan's to have rims and spokes made. They say they don't have specs so I'd rather send them the hubs instead of a drawing so that they have no excuses if they make a mistake. I did some measuring on the forks and I'm going to have to pull those apart as I think one of them may be very slightly bent. I couldn't get the assembly to be dead square on the surface plate. It wouldn't hurt them to get all cleaned up with fresh fluid anyway. I'm not sure what tire diameter they calculated trail with (it should be 702mm), but using an unmounted new Michelin front (693mm) my measurements of the fork offsetss are giving me 77mm of ground trail at full droop, where 79mm is what the manual claims. With the non-parallel clamps (1.5 degrees) at full bump (if the rake stays unchanged) trail will increase by about 5mm. The axle offset in the sliders is 24mm so the clamps are too flat to make me want to try them with center axle forks (that would be about 104mm of ground trail - a TY250 is 90mm). I'll have to see if I've got anything in the 75mm offset range as I've got some center axle Betors I could try. I do have a set of Sherpa T Betors that I'll need to look at to see how they divided up the offset between the clamps and slider. I might be able to mix and match to get some different total offsets, though there is a 1mm difference in fork tube OD I'd have to deal with. Power characteristics are the main difference I can recall between my 1974 325 Bultaco and the KT250. I'll have to try and do some swaps with people at the next trial I go to so I can get some idea of how different the various bikes feel. cheers, Michael

I stopped my trials riding about the time the KT250 came out, as I graduated from Uni in 12/75 and moved away from home (after selling all the bikes but my 350 Ducati cafe racer) in late summer 1976. I remember some of the other people in the NMTA having TL250s, Ty250s and RL250s but I can't recall any KT250s. My impression is that the KT250 was never as successful as the TY, but whether that was due to it not being as good or just that "big K" didn't put the money into developing it, I don't know. Jay Leal has mentioned riding a supported KT that sounds like it was pretty heavily modified. I suspect that Don Smith probably managed to beat a number of good riders, but how "stock" his KT250/300/330's were is questionable. I think I bought my KT250 in 1999. It came available locally and I had money available to buy it on the spur of the moment. If it had been a TY250 or Cota or MAR for a similar price I would have had that instead. I'm not a big "marque" snob. I'm easy, I'll ride most anything. Good riders can ride the 3 line in AHRMA on a stock TL125 and clean sections I don't (though I've placed reasonably well at some AHRMA regionals in the Novice class I'm not very consistent and I'll have those "why did I clean this twice and five it the third time?" moments). Having had a TL125 for a bit I think I can safely say that the KT250 is significantly more "trials ready" than the TL, so I don't think the KT is holding me back. I've got a period article from an Australian magazine that compares the TL, RL, TY and KT and they picked the KT as the overall winner, though they did say the TY handled better "in section". But they liked the KT engine over the TY's powerplant. Maybe a TY250 is better. It wouldn't surprise me. I know a 325 Bultaco is better. But I don't want to spend the money to buy another Bultaco when I'm not outriding the KT250. And on the 3 line (and probably the 2 and 1 lines for vintage) the rider is the significant factor that determines the score. That's a nice thing about trials, the bike isn't a huge factor. That doesn't mean we don't want to tweak things, but I suspect that most of us could hand our bikes over to a better rider and say "I didn't know that section could be cleaned on my bike." I think that any shortcomings of a KT250 wouldn't show up until someone was riding the 2 or 1 line in AHRMA. And anyone who is that good of a rider could probably ride around those shortcomings. My silk purse project is the TTY400. If I can get that built I suspect my scores will get significantly worse. But oh, what an excuse for that I'll have. Dave, are you at Nike? I think there's a number of Nike guys from Portland vintage roadracing Honda CB160s. If you know them, they know of me as many of the F-160 guys have bought the tuning guide I wrote. cheers, Michael

Oh yes, just in case you haven't found it already John Laurent's Vintage Kawasaki Trials & MX page has lots of very useful information. cheers, Michael

It was nice to see so much trials coverage in VV. It must be nice in some of the smaller countries where a day's drive gets you into one or two different countries for an event, instead of only almost to the state border with another day or three of driving to go. cheers, Michael

I'm working on getting mine back together after having it in pieces for several years. I did a search and it looks like there are a few other KT250 owners (at least one with a Gollner frame) here, but some of those posts were pretty old. http://www.eurospares.com/kt250.htm is a page on my website with information on my bike. I've put Fox Trials Shox on, retoothed the dished rear sprocket, modified the head squish clearances, done a little porting, built a pipe, aluminum tank (terminal rust on the stocker) and front fender stays and not much else. The piston is a second series Honda CR/MT250 Wiseco ((1975-77). Details of some of the changes are on my website. I'm getting close to either cutting off the bent (again) under engine frame rails and putting on an aluminum bash plate or just building a new frame that is the way I want it to be. The frame, swing arm, footpegs, electrics and brake lever are 32.5 lbf on my digital scale. That seems close to 10 lbf more than necessary. The KT250 engine with kick lever and carb is 64 lbf. That's 10 lbf more than the DOHC Yamaha 250 dirt bike motor (also used in the Scorpa trials bike). I'm also thinking about adding mass to the flywheel. The KT250 just doesn't run like I recall my 1974 325 Bultaco doing (which is hardly Kawasaki's fault). I'm not sure if the extra flywheel mass will be too much on a 250, but then it is hard to add as much as the Bultaco could since the latter had (IIRC) an extra flywheel on the primary drive sprocket. I'm having to order new rims as both OEM rims (mine is a 1975 model) have cracks and several years of sections in streams left the stock spokes and nipples pretty badly corroded. A friend who has a wheel shop has told me that the DID rims of that time seem to have been hardened a bit more in order to keep them from denting, leading to cracks instead of dents. My tendency to go as fast as possible between sections may not have helped to prevent cracks. It seems like the footpegs could go down a little, and maybe slightly back. The bike seems a bit nose heavy, but then that is compared to the Bultaco which had no trouble lofting the front end with a bit of throttle without the need for any heaving on the bars. I've seen one road test that mentioned that sometimes during a dead-slow full lock turn the steering will "crab" a bit and have the bike want to fall in to the turn. I think I've noticed that, has anyone else? Has anyone tried different forks/clamps with a significantly different axle offset (a TY250 has the same rake of 26.5 degrees but 90mm of trail to the KT's 79mm, and sounds like it doesn't have that issue). What modifications, if any, has anyone else done, or considered doing? cheers, Michael

Yes, the KT cover is pretty closely wrapped around the flywheel, and an end weight would need a case spacer (I think I saw those for some of the modern bikes with that kind of accessory weight) or I'll have to make both an adaptor plate and a different cover if I use a ring on the periphery of the flywheel. Either way would be a fun project. I'll definitely use steel for the weight. The price of brass is pretty staggering by comparison, and it is only a little bit heavier/volume. A 6.25" x 5.6" x 1" wide ring in steel is 3.24 lbf and brass would be 3.51 lbf. That is moderately significant, but the the price difference is majorly significant. cheers, Michael

Don Morely has a photo of an early Sherpa T at the SSDT where the owner (Alan Morewood) substituted an alloy plate for the bottom frame rails. He doesn't give a date but his text indicates that this was before Miller did something similar. From the paint job and exhaust it looks like it might be a Model 27. That looks like a nice job on the Reflex. I'm considering some wings like that to protect the side cases. A flat plate isn't going to be adding much to the structure. Then again, the way the existing frame tubes seem to creep upwards they aren't too wonderful either. I'm looking at the frame to see if I want to add in some extra bracing tubes anywhere. The main concern would be force on the front wheel trying to bend the frame at the nose of the seat. I'd prefer to not have the engine acting as the structure to prevent the bottom of the frame spreading apart though the KT does have some decent motor mount lugs so it probably wouldn't be a concern. I've got some photos of what I think is a Gollner KT250 that I'll have to look at as it uses just the skid plate and no tubes under the engine. I'll probably go with 1/4". There's no sense reducing on the thickness to save a few ounces if it means it needs to be reworked more frequently. cheers, Michael

OK, let's step back for a moment. The question is "protection, do we need it?" 1. Does trials have a potential for injury? 2. If yes, does it have a potential for serious injury? 3. If there is a potential for minor or serious injury, is there protective gear that can act to reduce the level of injury or eliminate it entirely? 4. If there is riding gear like that, can it be worn while competing in trials without giving the effect of putting a bag over your head and tieing at least one hand behind your back? The answer to 1 seems to very obviously be "yes." I've gotten significant scabbing from falling off a trials bike while wearing just a riding jersey so it is possible to have at least minor injuries like that. Even minor injuries can be annoyingly uncomfortable for several days. 2 is obviously "yes" unless ZIPPY is totally mistaken in his recollection of several different trials event accidents that resulted in serious injury. 3 is a no brainer as all you have to do is pick up a catalog of off-road riding gear to find assorted boots, gloves, pants, helmets, armor, braces etc made specifically to reduce the likelihood of injury, or to reduce the seriousness of an injury while dirt riding. There seems to be some room for discussion of 4. DrHUd and I both have worn higher levels of protective gear than is the norm in trials events, and neither of us seems to find it a hindrance. I don't think I've yet seen anyone post "yes, I did try wearing all of that and it made me fall down before I even got on the bike, and once I got on the bike I fell down twice" or anything like that. Is this one of those "everyone knows that a MX helmet and lighweight plastic upper armor will always be detrimental to anyone's scores if worn in a trial" common knowledge things? I'll say it again -- wearing my standard off-road riding helmet and lightweight armor doesn't hinder my riding in the slightest. I've ridden trials both with and without the upper body armor and there was no detectable difference in my ability (or inability) to clean any given section. None, zip, zilch, nada, zero. Maybe someone might find it a problem, but that doesn't seem to have been reported in this thread, other than a mention about having more cutaway at the back of the neck of a trials helmet may be useful at times. Then again, having something to protect your face is useful at times. Shoot, putting on my seatbelt before I back the van out of the driveway somewhat restricts my ability to move freely in the van, and it has been a good 7 or 8 years (IIRC) since I had a van totaled by someone running a stopsign (no injury to me). Perhaps I should remove the seatbelts as accidents don't happen very often, and in any event I've never been injured in an auto accident where I've been driving? I don't think so. "If you've got a $10 head wear a $10 helmet, if your head is worth more, wear a Bell." That ad was current when I started riding and I did wear a Bell. Maybe I'm just not competitive enough, since I'm unwilling to give up protective gear (that has proven itself to me to be of benefit) in order to help me to rocket to the upper echelons of the Novice club trials rider ranks. "Dress for the crash and not the ride" makes sense to me. It makes sense to people I know. It apparently doesn't make sense to everyone. I think that trials riders could take a little bit more reasonable precautions and reduce their chances of injury without hurting their scores in an event. I don't like seeing people get hurt. But since I've been unable to get everyone in the world to understand that they'd usually be best off following my advice I'll just make an attempt to explain my view and hope that it at minimum gets people to actually consider the issue and make some sort of informed decision about it. Once people have made an informed decision I'll respect that. I may think they are woefully mistaken but I'll respect their right to make that decision. cheers, Michael

Some people make it sound like they are using weights that bolt on to the outer face of the flywheel and others like they are referring to a ring shrunk on to the periphery of the flywheel. Did Yamaha use both methods? I want to add some more flywheel mass to my KT250 as it can have the "tends to stall easily amongst dry rocks" type of episode if I don't pay attention and hit something that momentarily slows the bike when running dead slow. I'm not a "clutcher", when I started riding people typically just let the clutch out and left it alone after that. The KT flywheel is 142mm/5.6" OD. What size ring is shrunk onto the TY flywheel? If I'm going to add metal, the ring will give the most effect for a given mass compared to the end plate. cheers, Michael

It appears that by the early 1980s many if not most of the bikes had gotten rid of the under-engine frame rails. I suspect that even if I started with some other bike's plate I'd have to chop/bend/weld on it before it fit right. Sometimes it is easier to make what you want right from the start instead of modifying something else. Unless of course you get very lucky. I might end up needing to borrow a friend's press to do the bending if the plate is quite thick and hardened, but I can do any machining/welding here at home. I can get a piece of plate delivered to my door the next day if I place an order by 4PM. 1/4" seems like it might be a bit more than needed. But maybe there's a trade off between "a bit more than needed" and "take off once a year and flatten it back out." The existing frame rails seem to have gotten into the stage of being a routine maintenance item. cheers, Michael

"I also think having riders like David Knight say in interviews that "he felt like trials gave him a great start as far as bike control"." Sammy Miller was also a world class roadracer. Mick Grant appears to have done a lot of trials riding in the off seasons from being a GP roadracer. I think Roger DeCoster was a Belgian trials champ (maybe schoolboy though) before becoming a MX star. Mick Andrews seems to have been pretty handy on a scrambles track before deciding to concentrate on trials. It seems like there ought to be a lot of other similar (and more current) examples of trials experience being a benefit to people in other areas of motorcycle sport. cheers, Michael

My KT250 needs to have the under-engine frame rails pounded back away from touching the engine. Again. I'm very tempted to just cut them out and go with an aluminum plate shield instead. What's the usual thickness and material used for this application? 3/16"/4-5mm and 6061-T6? Is there a bit of air space left between the plate and engine or do you run a sheet of conveyor belting or something similar in there to add some additional cushion? cheers, Michael

I suppose that the two people that ZIPPY mentioned who got ambulance rides away from the trials event don't post here. I've not been crippled by riding trials, motocross or roadracing. But 37+ years of riding allows for some crashes to happen or to see other people damaged in crashes. And if I crash and have scabs for a week, I have some incentive to not have scabs for another week. Do you know people who are dead or wheelchair pilots or in rehab for extensive time after motorcycle crashes? If not, you may lead a fairly sheltered life. I've known people who fall into all of those categories, many of them racers. Motorcycling is a dangerous pastime. I think it can be safer than horseback riding or riding a bicycle in metropolitan traffic, but that doesn't make it "safe." Not being "safe" doesn't mean that we stop, it means that we take reasonable precautions. But in the last couple of years I think here in Northern California we had someone die at a roadrace track day after falling at a fairly slow speed in the pits. Not even out on the track, just a stupid slow speed crash where they happened to land wrong while wearing full leathers, helmet, boots, gloves and back protector and with an ambulance crew at the track to offer immediate assistance. As the popular saying goes "**** happens." Who is more likely to have a serious and unexpected crash, someone learning how to ride trials (or in the "cocky" stage just past that where they think they ride better than they do) or someone who rides at an Expert level? Not the latter I think. How many people ride at the expert level? Probably fewer than ride in the novice/intermediate level. And how about those minders? If there's no risk in crashing in those big obstacles in a "pro" section, how come they need someone hanging around to grab them "just in case?" If I could could get consistent enough where I don't have 0, 0, 5 scores for a tough (novice) section and instead have 0, 0, 0 for the three loops then potential injuries might be less of a concern. But clean/clean/oops does happen. Am I going to attempt to ride modern trials sections? Not a chance. I have some idea of my ability and I'll ride within it. I don't need to risk injuring myself to show "machisimo." If Toni Bou can ride that stuff, more power to him. I'll be happy to marvel at his far from common ability from the sidelines. I suspect there's a reason that most clubman trials riders are not attempting to ride the same sections as Toni Bou. Could it be that they don't want to injure themselves? Could it be that it might be dangerous for someone with less skill than Toni to try and ride some of those sections? Would you like to make a case that trials is risk free? I'd be interested to see what you have to say. I've spectated (walking) at trials and watched other riders fall off in sections. Some of them didn't feel too good after doing that. I don't think I'm the only person in the world who has ever fallen off a trials bike. I've been lucky to have escaped with significant scabbing and not broken bones or worse. A prudent person evaluates risks and adjusts their behavior accordingly. I consider myself reasonably prudent, and I've got a reasonable idea of my riding skill, so I adjust my behavior accordingly. Wear a helmet or pads or knee guards or armor or something a little thicker than the sheerest of gauze or not as you wish. But if you wear boots instead of bedroom slippers, a helmet instead of a flat cap, dirt riding pants that are thicker than your pajamas and maybe have a bit of extra padding in the hip, knee or shin, you don't seem to have a very secure spot to stand on while you tell me that perhaps I shouldn't ride trials because I want to wear just a bit more protection than you do. I'm wearing about 1.5-2 lbf more protective gear than the typical pro trials rider. That's about 1% of my "ready to ride" weight. It doesn't slow me down, it doesn't make me deaf, it doesn't restrict my movements, it doesn't make me crash, it doesn't make me "5" because it kept me from putting the front wheel where it needed to go instead of 6" off of the correct line. cheers, Michael

majestyman340, you may have missed my earlier comment that the last time I went out on the trials bike without the body armor I came back with gravel rash across my back. Been there, don't want to do it again. I haven't seen a full-face "trials" helmet yet but it is the same thing. I've got teeth that I probably wouldn't have kept without mouth protection so I'm not riding without mouth protection. Perhaps that is part of the issue. I've had the value of protective gear demonstrated to me and I am going to pay heed to those lessons. It may be that I'd never have those kinds of incidents happen again. But since I'm aware they do happen I'll make my plans for them. Maybe other people who haven't had that kind of demonstration won't factor that into their decision-making process they way I do. I don't wear extra gear for the fun of it. It would be nice to be able to go out and ride around with just a cap and t-shirt and jeans when it is 90F (or hotter) weather. But I'm not going to do that. For me trails and trials and MX are all "dirt riding" and I've got standard gear that I've decided makes sense for me to wear when I go "dirt riding." ZIPPY, those incidents sound like they could be made into a TV show: "When motorcycles attack!!" If you can just fall by yourself it may not come off badly. Getting tangled up in the bike just adds a lot of hard/pointy/heavy/burning items into the mix. I try to remember to not make an attempt to save the bike. If it wants to crash at the same time I do I'd prefer that it go and do it without interfering with my crash. cheers, Michael

Tony, perhaps I am more talented at falling off of a trials bike than you are? I suppose not all talents are good ones to have but everyone has to be good at something. I do need to get better at remembering to fall off the uphill side of the bike instead the downhill side! I figured this thread was a "lay out how you see things and someone reading all the different viewpoints can have plenty of datat with which to make up their own mind" kind of discussion. I'm not a "no pain no gain" kind of person. I try to avoid getting hurt, and putting on protective gear when riding is something I do like putting on safety glasses and hearing protection and wearing short sleeves when running my machine tools or keeping a fire extinguisher near the welding bench. It makes sense to me. I'm aware that not everything that makes sense to me makes sense to other people. As to how I've done in other aspects of the sport, I've in the past been a decent intermediate level club rider, and the older I get the faster I was (though I do have a couple of boxes of old rr, mx and trials trophies I can drag out if I have to have something to show off). I can usually find someone I can beat, and there is always someone faster than I am. I'm happy to let a faster rider get by, it doesn't hurt my ego any. I think for trials something that is a bit harder than our usual novice #3 lines but not as difficult as the normal #2 lines is probably my comfort spot. I suppose I'm likely to eventually be forced out of the novice ranks and I'll end up three'ing my way through a lot more sections. cheers, Michael

I did try knitting one time but safety wire is just too hard to work with. I started racing 36 years ago and so far with trials, MX and roadracing I've kept all the parts functioning (except for one small numb spot on a knee). I intend to try and continue that practice as I'm hoping that I might get another 15-20 years of riding in. I've learned that "if you don't finish you can't win" is normally how things work and I've seen people lose series championships (or use of their legs or their life) due to injuries from riding. If you are going to engage in a risk sport you ought to make an assessment of the risks and adjust your behavior according to the amount of risk you are comfortable with. But don't let my appreciation of protective wear designed for use by motorcyclists keep ya'll from doing without. It's no skin off my nose, shoulder, leg, etc. cheers, Michael

Hi Tony, Trials specific? I'm not going to wear dirt bike gear while roadracing or my RR leathers while dirt biking. But I don't see that novice level amateur trials riding is basically different from trail riding or enduro riding or vintage MX as far as the protection requirements. Is there a significant difference in my Malcom Smith "generic off road" riding pants and trials-specific riding pants? Knee cups and some light shin and hip pads don't seem terribly restrictive or likely to prevent me from being able to place the front or rear wheel on the proper line. I've already got Gaerne trials boots and I'll admit they do give much better grip when walking a section than smooth-soled MX boots do and will also make you more surefooted when taking a dab. If you can point me at a full face trials helmet I'll take a look at it, but other than being cut a bit higher in the back I can't see how it could be much different than a modern full face MX helmet. I've got "first face" experience with the usefulness of a full-face offroad helmet and I'm not about to wear an open-face helmet because "I'm only trials riding." They don't call them accidents because they are planned. If falling off were a planned event, I'd definitely try to write them out of the plan for the day. While chest protectors were designed to keep thrown rocks from denting you, the back armor doesn't come into play until you've fallen off. I can assure you from personal experience that skating along the ground on your back at 15-20 mph is much less injurious in the lightweight MX upper body armor than it is without it! I've slid down a rocky and hard slope without the armor while trials riding out at Carnegie, and I had a nice case of gravel rash across my back from that. That was the last time I went riding on a trials bike without wearing the armor. Getting a handlebar end in the chest when I fall on the bike in a section or landing on my shoulder doesn't seem a big deal when the armor spreads out the blow. Protective gear is there to protect you. It may vary some with the kind of sport and protection needed. Wearing this newer protective gear is not like bundling up in 1960s American football shoulder pads and baseball catcher's chest and shin guards. If I were expecting Ryan Young to call me on a Monday morning to offer me a sponsored ride there might be some benefit to trading off some protection if it meant I was going to come in first instead of second. That seems unlikely to happen. Maybe if I can get lots of practice in and become a better trials rider I'll start to notice my riding gear having a negative effect on my scores. But even if that happens I'm probably not going to scale back on the level of protective gear. If someone else decides that a better score is worth an increased chance of injury (slight though it may be) that's their decision to make. They've got to wear the bruises/gravel rash, not me. I've tried wearing bruises and gravel rash and I didn't enjoy doing that, so I'll take steps to avoid them. cheers, Michael

I'll let people who think they "can compete succuessfully at the higher level of trials" decide what gear is appropriate for them, as they'll have a much better idea than I will of what is appropriate. I will note that gravity tends to not vary with one's trials skill level (in spite of what Toni Bou does on a trials bike to indicate otherwise ) and experts are going to hit the ground as hard as novices. They may not hit the ground as frequently, but I'd expect it to hurt just as much when they do. I'd prefer to not fall at all, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards at this point. I think most of us are unlikely to be eager to put on our riding gear, stand up on a chair, and then take a dive at the kitchen floor. That's basically what you do when you fall off your trials bike. Sometimes you may get luck and have nice soft dirt or mud to fall on, other times you've got rocks/stumps/motorcycles to fall on. I like having my own teeth so I'll keep wearing a full face helmet (and my MX helmet weighs 3.5 lbf which doesn't strike me as terribly heavy). I can recall at least one instance in the garage when I wish I'd been wearing a full face helmet. Having a wrench slip and smack you in the mouth is not pleasant. cheers, Michael