Observing Rules For 2007 Btc

[timp]

Having trials running under one observing rule in the UK will not work unless the rule is full no stop!

To most riders in the UK the rules used in the British, world or euro trials championships are of little importance. It would become important if the "world rules" came in to use in club trials they ride. I think it would be very unpopular and trials in the UK would see a large decline in popularity. At the moment trials in the UK are as popular as I have ever known with most good nationals running with full entries and club trials regularly running with 100+. Richmond seem to have massive entries and I think they run on no stop rules! (could be wrong on this)

It is hard enough to find 10+ observers now. If they have to operate a stopwatch as well as observe I doubt if we will have as many willing to help. If trials are run without a time limit in the section the queues are going to get out of hand whilst little superstars pose before the two foot step.

The world rules would not make trials any easier or better for the average clubman.

Surely the way ahead is for the "world rules" to change to a more sensible format. Watching trials dvds of 2006 season is similar to watching paint dry. There is no flow to the riding. The critical skill seems to be hopping into the right spot rather than actually riding the section.

Seems to me that things are pretty good for UK trials at the moment. Lets not ruin it by going back to the rules used in the 90s (the young ones won't remember how bad it was at times)

Is there a way for any individual to lobby the FIM or is it down to the ACU or their foreign counterparts?

M Timp.

[bikespace]

Why the big push for classic trials to go to non-stop. I'm errrr.....approaching 40 My bikes in my earlier days were Majesty's, Fantics, TY175, Bultaco, Ossa.

I never rode non-stop until I rode the Manx 2 day about 4 years ago.

When did the non-stop rules come in and go out?

Trials weren't so bad in the 70's 80's when you could stop, roll backwards, whatever you want, so why is non-stop seen as the purist classic trials???

[old trials fanatic]

Non stop is eaisier to observe, means sections can return to being more "natural" and less dangerous, reduce queues, open up more land for use as trials venues, require better rider skills like throttle control dynamic balance coordination etc and most important are the way that Real Trials riders ride

Now i'm gonna get it

[bikespace]

Now i'm gonna get it

Not at all

However...

Non stop is eaisier to observe - I don't think easier than FIM, and i do observe - I observed at Hawkstone this year. Non-stop always very dodgy whether a bike has actually stopped or just compressed the forks, or slid sideways etc etc

means sections can return to being more "natural" and less dangerous - If you mark out a good natural section, which doesn't require hopping and stopping, the non-stop doesn't come in to it as much - and I do mark out trials, including Novogar round

reduce queues - Yep - maybe, but especially if the sections are marked out so you need to hop around.

open up more land for use as trials venues - dunno? Maybe. Not for us really? But I'll go along with that one.

require better rider skills like throttle control dynamic balance coordination etc Hmmm....you can sing about how good Dave Thorpe and Mick Andrews are, but even given the advances in machinery, todays boys seem to have mastered throttle control and 'dynamic balancing' fairly well.

and most important are the way that Real Trials riders ride - As my years progress, maybe I'll agree with you but I'll try to remember not to enforce my favoured rules on the whipper snappers....probably

Edited January 5, 2007 by bikespace

[nigel dabster]

No one is saying all trials are to go fim just keep the BTC that way surely?

[bilco]

Non stop is eaisier to observe - I don't think easier than FIM, and i do ....you can sing about how good Dave Thorpe and Mick Andrews are, but even given the advances in machinery, todays boys seem to have mastered throttle control and 'dynamic balancing' fairly well.

Not sure i agree with that one.

(1)the modern bike's have got more instant power than the older bike's.

(2)the modern bike's are a lot lighter and the bike itself is narrower than the actual tyre's when there flat.

[bikespace]

I'm gonna stop as we're going a bit away from the BTC topic, but obviously I disagree One for another thread maybe.

It does seem strange to bring in an experimental year without setting a date to make a decision regarding its success or failure which would allow the new accepted rule to be brought in for the following year?

Seems like that decision should have been Aug/Sep time. Maybe the forum failure was to blame???

[nigel dabster]

it wasn't a BTC forum that is excluded.

[scorpa3]

As I have said before, all three sets of rules have their merits.

When we changed from the 'anything goes' rules in the late 90's it was an unpopular decision at the time with many and bought about because the FIM changed their rules (actually a year earlier as I remember.)

Initially it was harder to set out sections because we had got used to giving the riders (on the harder routes) little space to turn, line up etc.

We had to consider how much space was needed to ride non stop (well, 1 for stopping if you follow) but it soon became apparent that the better riders could still turn and position themselves in a small space- they just do it without stopping.

So..... the best riders are going to be the best riders irrespective of the rules and we will adapt to what ever rules are set. Lets just have ONE set of rules, if they change they change, it won't be the end of the world, we did it before and trials didn't dissapear.

[old trials fanatic]

Scorpa 3 :agree:

As i only ride Classic and Twinshock and had a break from the early 80's till 06 then i sort of missed the free for all time which peole have been posting about.

I didnt even realise there were 3 sets of rules

Seems a ridiculous situation to me.

OK run Club Trials, Classics etc basically as the organising club sees fit. As long as the riders and observers know which rules the competition is running to then all hunky dory. However a British Championship Round is a "feeder" to WTC and the two should surely be run under the same rules.

Now i've no idea if this is right but i thought the FIM was the World governing body and the ACU came ultimately under their auspices. Therefore by definition surely the Championship rounds organised by the ACU should fall into line with the FIM rules?

As others have said i suppose ultimately it doesnt matter which rules you ride to , ok i have previously stated MY preference, but ALL Championships should run to the same one and there should be a published and recognised / agreed period of stability with a firm review date acknowledged and agreed for sometine in the future. Four years seem ish to me but whatever just dont change from year to year it's daft.

[paioli]

why the classic bikes should not run under modern rules ,because they were not made to hop and bounce

through sections , 12 round classic series, 8 sammy rounds and counting, must be doing something right !

and all no stop ! and then there are all the classic clubs running club rounds around the country, this is not

just a few old farts riding around a feild once a year !

[scorpa3]

There are draw backs to whatever we decide.

Following the FIM would at first seem the obvious course but the FIM are a law unto themselves and whilst they would consider the ACU's wishes (in theory) they will do just what they think is best for them. If that means changing the rules half way through a season then that is what they would do, so setting a defined period for rule changes in the UK would probably not help.

For those riders who are likely (or hoping) to ride in Europe or WTC events, it is naturally best for them to be following the FIM rules at home and I think everyone would agree with that.

But... What if the FIM suddenly announce they are going full Non stop? Now wouldn't that make an interesting debate?

[paioli]

i would think it could spell the end of the world as we know it

[adsy]

Thanks John for your reply.

Having read the replies to this post, it seems, as someone has already said, that the majority of poeple who are against the full FIM in the BTC, are in no way involved in it

The ACU should listen to the riders on this occasion, and let them have what they want for a change.

We have some very talented riders in this country, the least that the ACU can do is let them have a Championship which they can use as a stepping stone to greater things, for those that prefer the more traditional type of event, they have the Novogar series, so why can't the elite have one for them running under the WTC rules, whatever they may be at the time.

Please can we let common sense win on this occasion and not let beurocracy bugger it up .

Cheers.

Edited January 6, 2007 by Adsy

[john collins]

Who the hell started all this anyway?

I think it is fairly easy to see that while principles are fine - in reality one can see from just the diversity of opinion shown ( and some of that has changed fron one post to another) that it is complicated matter.

Also I am afraid we tend to be looking for a simple answer to the problem and there ain't one.

Someone posted that at present - Trials in the UK are strong - and this is very true. It is land issues and a whole lot of other things that are more likely to balls this up than any marking system - so we should put this into perspective.

For the last few years at least we have worked with two sets of rules - there have been no real problems - I know people keep harping on about confusion - but has actually been the case?

Other than for Championship events - every Club/Centre can determine what suits their riders/observers/ and particulary their venues - and choose one of the marking methods - I do not see that there is a big problem with this.

Certainly total No-Stop is the system is the system I grew up with - and if I ride in a Sammy Miller or Classic trial this is the system that everyone wants - and will therefore be maintained - no problem.

If organisers of events fior modern bikes wish to adopt this system - absolutely no one is stopping them and if this is what their riders want - no problem.

Where it all goes pear shaped in my opinion however is when people wish to convince/influence everyone else by decrying those events who choose to run under TSR 22 - which was after all introduced when the FIM decided to move away from the " hopping & bopping - anything goes system". When the FIM decided to change back - it was not at all clear that they would remain with the system - and so in the UK - after deliberation we stayed with the TSR 22.

At this time - as I have said before - the FIM were still talking about a return to full no-stop , but it appeared this would only happen if a device could be developed to take this decision away from the observer ie an electronic light to tell observer when wheel stopped.

Lots of money/development went on and a device was produced. Dougie was asked at the TDN to demonstrate it - idea being that as all countries were there - and could be suitable impressed.

It was about as much use as a choclate teapot - so back to the drawing board.

After more development - apperently a device was perfected - and the FIM wrote to Federations - obviously including the ACU - asking that if they returned to full No-Stop in World Champ - would we consider also returning to no - stop - we relied that yes we would.

Since then - to the best of my knowledge - there seems to be no desire from FIM - at present at least- to change the format they have now. Will there be change in future - your guess is as good as mine

Someone asked about individuals influencing FIM - answer is really no - I think riders in WC have a chance to do this, certainly manufacturers/importers have things to say - but at end of day it is the CTR ( FIM Trials Commission that make rules - and this is correct and only way it really ever can be)

And so we know that certainly for 2007 - the FIM system will be same as last year.

I am afraid OTF is way off mark in determining FIM have any influence over home federation Championships - it is of no concern, responsibility or probably interest to them. Their responsibility is to set the method of marking for World and other FIM Championships.

In fact the UEM could in theory have their own set of marking rules for the European - but of course they do not and mirror the FIM - which is sensible as not only are the events often on consecutive days ( that really would cause confusion !!) but also of course a feeder into the World Championship.

Incidentally - in Enduro - until know there have been quite large differences including penalties between FIM and UEM Championships - and while the gap is now closer - there still will be quite a few - it has cased no real problems - but we are bringing the two closer together to try to ease the riders path into the WC

However where OTF is correct is that if we wish our Brit Champ to be a feeder into the European and World - then there is a strong case for following their rules - hence the change in 2006.

I have already explained in detail why it was an experimental year.

I am afraid I cannot agree with the view questioning why should it have been an experiment - why not fixed ? To run a BC you need organisers - and for these organisers to adopt this system there were question marks - as some have pointed out - how would observers get on with clocks etc.

To run a British Champ - you must have riders , you must also have organisers - the two go together - and so while many of the posts are quite clear in their view as to what they wish to see - if they are not actually organisers themselves - there may be things they have not thought about.

This is the reason why for the BC - we consult with the organisers themselves - and always have done- at leat since I joined T & E.

We have always invited riders to the meeting - frankly with the exception of a small few they have rarely attended - and this is why this year at least we have written to them to obtain their clear view.

So there you have it. There is nothing wrong with the time scale of all this at all. The BC organisers know the score - and of course there are many many other things we all discuss at the meeting - not just marking. Sponsorship, promotion, practice, number of rounds to count, results etc are all on each agenda and are fully debated each year.

To sum up:

No- Stop trials are popular - and there are many who would like to see a return to this system for all trials - personally I beg to differ that they are " easier to observe" - but perhaps thats just me - but as a rider and observer under this system I am not at all convinced a " 5" is given for a moments stop - and the Observer is far more likey to give a 1 ( buts that another debate I know)

If you accept the merits of Non Stop - but also then wish to allow the vast majority who ride Novogar and all the other Centre/Club events quite happily - and as people have said - trials are strong at present - then you cannot possibly under any logical train of thought advocate 1 set of marking rules.

As far as the BC is concerned - if there is a strong case ( and if the Organisers/Observers agree) and the riders prefer it - I can see no reason why FIM rules should not be maintained .

It must be wrong for those who do not organise or observe a BC to explain how difficult it is or how it could effect this or that ? At present it effects nowt but the BC. The organisers of BC know the score and are fully involved - they know what their observers want. Those who ride in it know the score - and they register for the Champ - if they wish.

I just cannot for the life of me see why everyone is so worried about there being 3 sets of rules - when in all probablity the FIM one is not at present going to affect them in any shape or form ?