Fim Observing Rules.

[scorpa3]

In this weeks T&MX news, Rappers states that he believes all trials should now go over to FIM rules.

ie- one for stopping.

He suggests that the "better riders" get away with shorts stops because they are feet up and in control, where as the "strugglers" who foot through a section making similar length short stops are frequently given a five.

I must say his argument makes sense.... or does it?

Is this what happens?

[fellonmelug]

I recently had the misfortune to observe at an FIM rules trial , I observed how i thought the rules applied ie if the bike moves back its a five . As it was a youth trial with punch cards the riders could see straight away what they had scored . I watched carefully the rear tyre tread of the machine at a point in the section where riders where stopping. If i noticed any movement of the tread rearwards i marked a five on the punchcard. I spent the whole day in constant argument with riders and fathers as they beleived they had not gone backwards . If the trial had been no stop i would have had a peacefull day.

Hopefully more trials will become no-stop and the FIM rules will be ditched .

[woody]

I thought ACU rule for 'modern' trials is no penalty for a feet-up stop, it hasn't been a 5 for a stop of any kind for years has it...? (obviously no-stop trials excepted)

You can stop, standing up or sitting down on the bike with one or both feet down without a 5, just the requisite number of dabs, as I thought the only way to get a 5 these days was to go backwards, out of the section (not always penalised due to different interpretations of the boundary of a section) or fall off.

Edited September 7, 2006 by Woody

[scorpa3]

I recently had the misfortune to observe at an FIM rules trial , I observed how i thought the rules applied ie if the bike moves back its a five . As it was a youth trial with punch cards the riders could see straight away what they had scored . I watched carefully the rear tyre tread of the machine at a point in the section where riders where stopping. If i noticed any movement of the tread rearwards i marked a five on the punchcard. I spent the whole day in constant argument with riders and fathers as they beleived they had not gone backwards . If the trial had been no stop i would have had a peacefull day.

Hopefully more trials will become no-stop and the FIM rules will be ditched .

Or perhaps you would have had the same arguments about stopping instead of ones about going backwards?

[fellonmelug]

I recently had the misfortune to observe at an FIM rules trial , I observed how i thought the rules applied ie if the bike moves back its a five . As it was a youth trial with punch cards the riders could see straight away what they had scored . I watched carefully the rear tyre tread of the machine at a point in the section where riders where stopping. If i noticed any movement of the tread rearwards i marked a five on the punchcard. I spent the whole day in constant argument with riders and fathers as they beleived they had not gone backwards . If the trial had been no stop i would have had a peacefull day.

Hopefully more trials will become no-stop and the FIM rules will be ditched .

Or perhaps you would have had the same arguments about stopping instead of ones about going backwards?

There will always be arguments about observing decisions but i feel the no stop rules are easier when it comes to observing

[slapshot 3]

Sorry guys, old arguement on here. Only way forward and to bring trials to a sensible level is NO STOP. FIM and everyone else needs to adopt this other wise the "SHOW" that is WTC and Indoor WTC will get further and further away from we know as trials

[bdmc]

TSR22a in the ACU handbook is the rule where you are docked a 1 for stopping with both feet still on the footrests.

The rules that are used at WTC are different. If you stop with both feet still on the footrests you will not be penalised any marks.

There is nothing in the ACU hanbook about the WTC method of marking because it does not apply to our governing body.

Is 'Rappers' talking about TSR22a or WTC rules. I dont know because I haven't purchased the paper yet.

[zippy]

OK my 2 cents (probably not worth that much)

Observed trials is about control of the motorcycle. If you can stop and balance without putting a foot down than you are in control of the bike: = No penalty.

If you stop and place foot down you are no longer in control of the bike. This is unfortunately where it get kinda subjective.

If the foot is dabbed and then placed back on the footpeg and the rider is balancing, this should be a penalty of 1.

If the rider stops and dabs and pushes with foot causing forward motion this should also be a penalty of 1.

If the rider stops and places foot on ground and surveys the section or discusses the section with someone else or is just taking a rest. This should be a penalty of 5. Reason: The rider is in no more control of the bike than the kickstand would be. At this point the rider's leg is basically a kickstand.

Just my opinion, I am not aware of anywhere that this is actually written down as a rule.

[scorpa3]

Yes Rappers is talking about the WTC rules.

I personally think that all trials would be better for becoming Non stop, but that wasn't my original point at the start of this thread.

What I was wondering was.... do the "better riders" get away with shorts stops because they are feet up and in control, where as the "strugglers" who foot through a section making similar length short stops are frequently given a five.

As Rappers suggests?

[hillary]

I must clear things up here, this is Rappers (aka Hillary for those that don't know!) I was making the point about TSR 22A, NOT World Championship regulations which mean nothing to us that ride every week. Let me make the point very clear. In a recent trial that was non-stop, I made very good attempts at a number of difficult sections, but due to age and ability dropped into holes. Both feet went down like a flash and with a big heave I managed to extract myself with a momentary stop of about 1-2 seconds. The sections were hard and I considered my efforts better than many others and should have been well rewarded with threes instead of the fives I got.

Taking a breather, I spent a few minutes watching much better riders tackle the same sections. In two cases they reached the point where I fived, but they stayed feet-up, balanced for 1-2 seconds, got onto line and continued. The stop times were the same, or pretty close, and judging from results sheets, the better riders were not fived.

I don't intend to name the trial, sections or observers as that's not the point, but what I am saying is that frequently the rules are not being applied equally. Whilst I prefer "stop allowed" trials, I'm happy to ride non-stop trials as long as it's fair for all.

I know I'm not alone in this belief, less able riders, particularly older riders benefit enormously when trials are stop allowed, Fact of life is that at 50 plus (and there are hundreds still doing it at this age) there is not the energy, balance and stamina of a teenage sensation, and that fact needs recognising.

Many no-stop trials are totally fair for all because they are marked out with no-stop riding in mind, but for those that watched at Happy Valley in the Manx Two Day, the hard course version was nigh on impossible to achieve without a momentary stop. This is not a criticism of the Manx which was again a wonderful trial, and I have no idea how the observer at happy Valley marked the section, but I watched for the best part of 90 minutes and those that did the "hard but just possible way" through the section HAD to make a momentary stop, for if they didn't, they went over the bars. I don't know if they were fived or not, but to do the section, a momentary stop was needed.

Whilst writing for a Trials website where I suppose everybody is a fan, can I just make the point that sometimes folks seem to forget that Sundays are for FUN. The working week is tough enough as it is without folks making hard work of Sundays. It'sonly a game, there's no money in it and the result means nothing come Wednesday. Sometimes, just sometimes, we need to lighten up a touch!

[old trials fanatic]

Good points all. I'm one of those over 50 riders returning to trials as a bit of FUN.

I prefer the NO STOP rule as it is simple and not open to the observers interpretation. Plus it allows and almost demands the use of sections that are more FUN and less dangerous and as Hillary says the week is hard enough as it is plus i have to go to work on Monday to pay for Sundays FUN. NON STOP is unambiguous and simpler for the more inexperienced observers and in these days of most trials being desperate for observers why make it more difficult and potentially confrontational?????

Whatever i dont understand why events are run on different rules anyway especially when they are under the auspices of the ACU or in my case most of the clubs i enter are AMCA.

Shame really as IMHO i've witnessed more arguements over this one aspect of the rules than any other.

I blame cycle trials but then again i'm an old codger

[bikespace]

I'm inclined to observe that way too to be honest. The rider gets more of the benefit of the doubt when he keeps his feet up than when he's stopped with his feet down, rightly or wrongly (well it's wrongly I suppose isn't it ).

I must admit I don't agree that you should have got 3's because you only stopped for a second or two. It's no-stop and you can't complain that you get 5's for stopping.

Dubious one with the balancing stop - it is a lot more doubtful than straddling the bike with feet down though.

The organisers have got to make an effort to make the sections ridable without a stop too. The Manx was a great trial again this year, and very few if any needed a stop, but yes there's often the odd occasion where it's very tight. I'm buggered if i can remember happy valley though so can't comment

What I will say is it goes both ways. I saw one rider have what we thought was about four 5's in one section, and ended up with a three, then I went through with three dabs and we end up on the same result.

These days I think I prefer the no-stop trials such as the Manx and strict observing with it, where the section allows.

I can't remember a section from the Manx where I had to stop, although there was the odd one which was helped by hopping the rear wheel over to ease the corner.

My sympathy for the old buggers is nil this year as Dave Thorpe managed to sneak in front of me aged 124 with no knees

[scorpa3]

Sorry Hillary, when you said FIM rules in the article, I wrongly thought WTC.

Isn't what you describe just down to observer interpretation and often going to be a point of contention which ever rules are used?

For example, I personally have never seen a five awarded for a stationary bounce to the side.

[coxy]

i rode the scarborough two day trial this year and they used the fim rules as a matter of it was most requested by the riders and i think that it worked fantastic and it is a much better ruling system than the acu, if it were my choice i would switch to fim straight away!

[rabie]

i read Rappers bit in TMX and in my humble opinion ( ) Rappers has missed the main point in the TSR 22 A vs TSR 22 B debate - although his example is valid and I'll get to it

first of all why do we (as a sport) need to be so dictatorial that we need to tell organisers (again volunteers doing it for fun) what marking system they should use (IMHO lets have more systems, if you want WTC then go ahead, I've seen LDTs have graded hills with more than five gates, etc, etc)

specifically the point IMHO that rappers misses is that under 22 A or 22 B the observer is still penalising a stop. what rappers points out is that observers aren't penalising stops !!! - under A or B they should be. now backwards movement is a five under either set of rules.

IMHO there is a place for both non stop ( and stop with penalties (A) - perhaps A should be changed to allow more "bunny hopping" (we had this debate - writ large - some months ago)

the other way to look at the problem is that if we were to follow rapper's lead and implement 22 B everywhere how many organisers would say "f*** that" and go off and run the same event with the same riders under an AMCA or ORPA - we would back a square 1 with a divided and confused trials community but be in a worse position to co-operate to face the external threat the sport faces (eg ramblers, etc).

where Rappers is right (again ) is that all of this is dependant upon how the course is set out, how the riders ride it and how the observers choose to observe it. in my experience not everyone is fully conversant in the intricacies of this debate (ie the difference is a 1 or 5 for a stop, not being aloud a stop for free or being aloud to go backward or sidewards) and thus the confusion perpetuates (and how do you tell volunteer observers they are observing wrong?)