Observing Rules

[atomant]

Drum brake's,Twinshock's,make the bike heavier,that's the only way forward.

Why on earth do you want to make a bike heavier? That is just complete and utter madness in my opinion. I wouldn't like a bike of the weight of an Ariel 500 falling on me from a 2ft step never mind a 6ft step.

What is your reasoning behind that suggestion?

[scorpa3]

Limiting bikes in some way 'may' be one solution, but how on earth would you convince everyone to do it? It would have to start withthe FIM, then be approved by every governing body and then adopted in every championship.

Not so long back it was going to be an all Four Stroke future and the powers that be couldn't even enforce that.

I grant you the FIM could bring in some weight restriction but it would hardly be one which made a significant difference to existing machines.

[atomant]

So - if the 15 above decide to go for one set of rules - we must by definition change the British Solo Adult Championship to No -Stop.

Being completely politically incorrect here, what is the average age of the this theoretical committee? Why do I ask this? Because I bet its much higher than the average age of a a rider who competes in the nationals and I would suggest therefore that most will not have a clear idea what the riders want. Am I right or wrong?

As mentioned before, I have always been interested in seeing the youths develop and the best British ones getting a shot on the big stage but in reality, you can count the UK's potential WTC top 5 riders (outside DL) on one hand.

So, my thinking is this. If we want more riders to be at the top level, gear the 98% of British trials towards FIM rules keeping the special trials like the Scott/SSDT traditional.

If we don't care about getting riders to the top level then get all ACU members to vote and if they want no-stop then go with it.

I personally think that whilst we debate the rules time and time again on here, Sunday riders take it all too seriously. I really don't care what score I get these days. The wife is never impressed when on the rare occasion I take home a trophy.

I think the majority want no-stop on here as its easy to enjoy it. Maybe thats the crux of it, the funs gone out of it for most and its time to put it back in?

At the end of the day, you have to give the customers what they want don't you?

IMHO

[bikespace]

I enjoy riding the odd non-stop trial such as the Manx, but I also enjoy our local club trials under TSR22a. I didn't vote above because I don't see that one set of rules is the answer. It's not that bad as it is. Some people will whinge no matter what. At the moment, if you don't like TSR22a you can organise your own trial and use non-stop if you're that bothered. Riders who like both have the option of doing that. Riders who are that bothered about riding one or the other can travel if they like.

Here we go with a bit of devils advocate, or at least trolling :-)

I think generally that the majority of people who will vote for one set of rules will vote for non-stop, because they tend to be 'stuck in their ways' and unable to ride both. Not all of them, certainly, but a good number which may sway the numbers considerably. Most of the pre-65/twinshock crew for starters.

The lads who like TSR22a may be quite happy to let the other blokes have their non stop and would be equally happy with FIM.

Just a thought.

[scorpa3]

TSR22a was at one point the FIM rules, but then they changed.

This is the problem with us adopting FIM rules, they can swap about without notice.

[swooshdave]

Drum brake's,Twinshock's,make the bike heavier,that's the only way forward.

Why on earth do you want to make a bike heavier? That is just complete and utter madness in my opinion. I wouldn't like a bike of the weight of an Ariel 500 falling on me from a 2ft step never mind a 6ft step.

What is your reasoning behind that suggestion?

If it wasn't apparent enough, that appeared to be utter sarcasm.

[atomant]

Drum brake's,Twinshock's,make the bike heavier,that's the only way forward.

Why on earth do you want to make a bike heavier? That is just complete and utter madness in my opinion. I wouldn't like a bike of the weight of an Ariel 500 falling on me from a 2ft step never mind a 6ft step.

What is your reasoning behind that suggestion?

If it wasn't apparent enough, that appeared to be utter sarcasm.

That wasn't sarcasm, that was just plain sardonic ! Seriously, I am intrigued why anyone would want to make the bikes heavier?

[bilco]

Drum brake's,Twinshock's,make the bike heavier,that's the only way forward.

Why on earth do you want to make a bike heavier? That is just complete and utter madness in my opinion. I wouldn't like a bike of the weight of an Ariel 500 falling on me from a 2ft step never mind a 6ft step.

What is your reasoning behind that suggestion?

If it wasn't apparent enough, that appeared to be utter sarcasm.

That wasn't sarcasm, that was just plain sardonic ! Seriously, I am intrigued why anyone would want to make the bikes heavier?

It was meant as you took it swoosh.

Well mind you still ridding on drum brake's don't stop me still having a good trial,mind you they don't stop the bike either,but that's all part of the fun for me(pick your tree and scream).

(Sardonic),Blimey Atom your word's are getting advanced mate,are you making them up as you go along or what.

[atomant]

(Sardonic),Blimey Atom your word's are getting advanced mate,are you making them up as you go along or what.

I have this strategy you see! If it looks like I'm gonna get beat in a banter bash, I pull out the big words and hope it scares them off

[bilco]

(Sardonic),Blimey Atom your word's are getting advanced mate,are you making them up as you go along or what.

I have this strategy you see! If it looks like I'm gonna get beat in a banter bash, I pull out the big words and hope it scares them off

Yer i've noticed alot of your post's going that way recently.

The real trial's weather is coming around again,disc's,drum's we all slide the same in the mud.

[boofont]

I'm going to stick my neck on the line with this one, how many of us give a 5 (like we should) at a no stop trial when we see a good rider stopped and balancing or maybe front wheel stopped (therefore no forward motion) hopping the back? I know I should but would I? Maybe not, and therein lies the problem.

When is a stop a "stop"? Is it after 0.1 of second? Maybe 0.5? what about 5 seconds?

I'm in favour of no stop but I feel the 5 is often not given when it should because many that observe feel intimidated by a good rider who may have 5'd through his or her choice to stop rather than an unintentional 5.

[scorpa3]

I'm going to stick my neck on the line with this one, how many of us give a 5 (like we should) at a no stop trial when we see a good rider stopped and balancing or maybe front wheel stopped (therefore no forward motion) hopping the back? I know I should but would I? Maybe not, and therein lies the problem.

When is a stop a "stop"? Is it after 0.1 of second? Maybe 0.5? what about 5 seconds?

I'm in favour of no stop but I feel the 5 is often not given when it should because many that observe feel intimidated by a good rider who may have 5'd through his or her choice to stop rather than an unintentional 5.

On the same principle; under TSR22a a stop should count as a one. A stationary dab should be a two. I've almost never seen either of those given, so in a way it's just as bad?

[zippy]

OK I gonna stick my neck out on this one, (remember I am from the States and may not be familiar with other cultures)

What is wrong with stopping and balancing?

Why is that so bad?

Isn't Observed Trials main concern is control of the motorcyle?

What better control can one have than to stop, balance and make the motorcycle do exactly what you want?

Now Don't get all upset and traditional on me.

Personally I believe that being able to pick your line and be able to execute that line smoothly without stopping is a great skill and control of the machine, But on the reverse being able to stop, hop the tires sideways and bounce around like a pogo stick is also great skill and control of the machine. I am not trying to push one "style" of riding over the other, I just want to know what is so evil about stopping that it must be penalized.

On a side note: here is food for thought. Stopping is allowed as balance is control, but if one stops and places a foot on the ground it is a 5. Reason: your leg is now just a kickstand and the only control you have of the machine is keeping it vertical which can be accomplished with the afformentioned kickstand.

[woody]

On a side note: here is food for thought. Stopping is allowed as balance is control, but if one stops and places a foot on the ground it is a 5. Reason: your leg is now just a kickstand and the only control you have of the machine is keeping it vertical which can be accomplished with the afformentioned kickstand.

This used to be the rule under the original stop/hop/reversing allowed rules. If you stuck a foot down when stationary it was a 5. The way around this for riders who were about to lose there balance whilst stationary, was to move the bike forward slightly and take the dab, therefore it was a dab whilst moving forward to regain their balance, not a stationary dab and a 5. Then, the whole process would start over again. The rider would hop the bike back to where they were originally, stationery balance again and try and line the bike up again for whatever obstacle they had to negotiate. It took ages for riders to complete sections, the queues were massive and it was a real pain in the @rse to be stuck in one. Time limits are ok in world rounds but totaly unfeasible in club/centre trials. When riders did stationary dab there were arguments and rows as to whether they were stationary or moving. As ever, top riders got the benefit of the doubt over stationary fives, average Joe didn't.

And what happens when you sump out on something having failed in an attempt to get over it. Stationary balancing whilst sumped isn't balancing, the bike is being supported by whatever is under the sump after the rider has FAILED to get over it. However, a 5 wasn't given and the rider was free to spend ages wriggling around to get back off whatever they were sumped on, reverse back and have another go - and again, and again until they got over it or eventually fell off - usually the latter - so much more efficient to 5 them for failing to get over it originally.....

Allowing stop/hop etc means tighter and much harder sections. The real fact is, there are very few riders (relative to the overall numbers competing) who can perform the tricks properly. That's why WTC has so few riders. The British Championship class doesn't even have enough riders participating to fill all the points scoring places and the difference in scores between the top 3 or 4 and the rest is huge.

There are too many riders competing these days with abilitiy that is nowhere near that needed to perform the simplest of wheel hops. One set of rules allowing trick riding will just kill their interest and put trials back where it was back in the early 90s with entries for all the major trials including the SSDT decling.

My own view is that things seem fine as they are running 3 sets of rules - all the major events are well supported/OVERSUBSCRIBED that run under the stop allowed but penalty is a 1 rule, or the full no-stop rule like SSDT. The riders who want FIM do what you like rules have them for the British Campionship - look how well that is supported. So it's not hard to see what the majority would want if ballotted. But I think it would be wrong to impose one set of rules, whichever they may be. It's just not workable any more.

I still can't see why there is confusion over what set of rules you're riding to in event. READ the regs, it seems pretty simple to me.... As for observers not knowing what rules they should be enforcing, observing has never been consistent regardless of the rules - this isn't a criticism of observers, just a fact. For example;

Stationary dabs were not always penalised as a 5

Stops under no stop rules not always given a 5

Stops under 'stop permitted but a 1 mark penaly incurred' - dab not always given

Stationary dab should be a 2 not always given - maybe never...

Rider using tree/stream bank/rock to support self/bike not always penalised

etc. etc. etc.

And riders will still bend or blatantly break rules to gain an advantage win at all costs, bugger the spirit of the event - I've seen full on trick riding under full no-stop rules on a tricked up Pre65 bike. The riders know the rules, so do the observers, but because it is a leading rider, pulling off a clean, the observer presumably feels they should give it and no penalty is incurred.

There's no simple solution to the problem of 'observing rules', but I think the days are gone that one set can be applied to all events.

[bikespace]

Well said Woody - agree with every bit of that.

I do think it's unfortunate that they couldn't get round the problems of the 80's by introducing a time wasting rule (or something) - observer warns rider to get out of section and if he still takes the Mickey, he's 5'd.

Anyhow, I agree, nowt wrong with having a few rules to choose from. I don't think it's particularly that the observers don't understand which rules are being used, just that some of them are hard to police sometimes. Better as it is than everybody being forced in to one set of rules and clubs breaking off to AMCA etc.