Super Experts

[windlestone]

At a recent trial Michael Pillipson and Ian Austermuhle marked out a course which was designed for "Super Experts". The lads went up to the venue on the Saturday with the organising club officials and marked out a route, all be it for themselves, but also for others to ride and enjoy. Now up in the Durham, Tyne and Wear and Northumberland area we do have the likes of Michael Phillipson, John Crinson, Micheal Lee, Colin Ward etc who are all excellent riders but we also have the clubmen and novices. Without sounding detrimental a lot of the trials marked out in these areas are struggling to mark out suitable courses for everyone. WHY? It's the old addage of not being able to please all of the people ANY of the time. Quite often a trial can be deemed too hard for most of us yet the experts find it too easy. The top riders and up and coming riders in our centres need to be tested and benefit from the experience of our experts who are willing to travel up and down the country and abroad. Nearly everyone i have spoken too has said how awesome it was to be able to watch Michael and Ian etc ride some unbelievable sections yet still be able to ride a route to suit their abilities too. Obviously this can not happen at every event but it did give an awful lot of people a great deal of pleasure watching the super experts.

Well done Michael and Ian.

[bikespace]

This seems like a viable argument for extra routes at trials. There are regularly arguments against having more than a couple of routes.

I'm still a little undecided as to it's effect on trials as a whole, although I think my gripe is over too many classes, as opposed to too many routes.

When the riders themselves are turning out to mark out these extra routes then I can't see there being any argument against it.

My view is that 3 routes is good, but keep the classes to a minimum. If an extra route is needed at the TOP for individual events then so be it.

But, on all the Novogar's and big Nationals, experts manage to compete over the same sections as the super experts without too much pain and anguish.

There's some confusion these days (in my mind anyway), so here's a question regarding your post: What's the difference between a clubman and a novice.

I'd say most of our clubmen are novice level, (for Yorkshire level novice sections anyway).

[windlestone]

Instead of Novice i probably should have put Easy Route Riders. We generally have expert clubman and easy routes. I tend to go back to the 70's in my terminology when we all rode the same course together and you progressed fom novice to intermediate then expert. A very competant, in my opinion, couple of riders from our centre finished last and second last in the Travers. They are both capable of finishing mid way up the Clubman class at our local events. I think it's an excellent achievement to finish the Travers but where does that leave the standard of our events compared to the standard in Yorkshire? Or should i say the severity.

At least you haven't threatened to kill me yet Bikespace

[bikespace]

I think the level of rider travelling to the national events these days is generally Expert at club level, or capable of struggling round expert sections, or possibly intermediate.

Not sure whether that's the way it should be or not, but there seem to be enough of them to fill the entry lists.

How does that fit in with the perception from other centres?

Apologies if that previous question sounded aggressive, not meant to be

Just realised my signature may seem a little aggressive too, but also innocent funny line I loved from a martial arts film

Anyone know which one?

[neonsurge]

As was mentioned in TMX a couple of weeks ago, my local club has been thinking along similar lines recently and are apparently considering the inclusion of "super" sections at some trials to provide more of a challenge to the best riders. An example of the problem is that at the last club championship round a couple of weeks ago, Michael Brown won the expert class on 0. That is, not a single mark lost during the entire event. There were several others with very low scores as well. The problem is, the spread of scores in the experts went from 0-72 so on the face of it, it's not as though the course was exceptionally easy (in fact, the expert lines looked very scary to me from my lowly clubman B perspective).

Windlestone makes a very good point about the difficulty of making the course suitable for all abilities: Club trials frequently cater for all classes, from adult experts to youth D and adding another "super expert" line to sections would cause lots of confusion amongst the less experienced riders (me) - imagine the mass of flags! I don't know how practical completely seperate courses would be, especially considering the work that people put in to laying out the events as it is (not to mention the problem of finding enough observers). Maybe a few "super experts only" sections and toughen up the rest of the expert lines a bit? I dunno...

[windlestone]

No worries Bikespace i was just musing with your signature.

Is it from Romeo must Die?

Are you entering the Scott?

I spoke to JR Sunt right after last years Scott. I think he posted 7th fastest time, definately in the top ten anyway. Graham Jarvis finished 32 or so minutes in front of him!!!

Sunt said he could have possibly gone 15 minutes quicker but no way 30 minutes.

Anyone who finishes deserves more than a spoon in my book.

[bikespace]

No, I'm whimping out of the Scott. I had intended having a go, but I gave my bike a semi hard time at the manx 2 day and it wasn't too happy for a while. I think I could kill it at the Scott if I wanted.

I didn't like the idea of being torn between winding the throttle open and showing a bit of mercy to the trusty steed.

I need a 500 Sherco!

That's my story anyway