neonsurge Posted November 22, 2004 Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 (edited) I kind of embarassed to ask this question, but I've made a fool of myself so many times on this forum that I suppose once more won't make much difference. I'm sure what I'm about to ask is covered in great detail in the ACU handbook but I don't recall receiving a copy with this year's membership renewal and I can't find a downloadable copy on the ACU web site (and a bit of Google-fu hasn't turned anything up), so here goes: ACU trials rules: Non-stop or not? Now just hang on a sec: You could quite legitmately say that someone's who's been taking part (note that I didn't say "competing"!) in trials for over a year since returning to the sport should really know the answer to this and all responses along the lines of "you daft bugger" will be accepted without comment although honestly, I'm not sure. I'd always assumed that UK club trials run under the ACU banner were non-stop (just like the boiler suit, flat cap and NCB wellies days) although you frequently see riders stopping to hop the front or rear and to nose-wheelie 'round a very tight turn, especially in the expert classes. Is it a case of the club and/or observers being lenient or is stopping allowed? OK, flame away... Edited November 22, 2004 by neonsurge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scottie Posted November 22, 2004 Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 (edited) For a BC Round you can but it's a dab. Edited November 22, 2004 by Scottie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabie Posted November 22, 2004 Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 Maybe I Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twinnshock Posted November 22, 2004 Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 In the Eastern Centre, we normally run "no stop" for the old buggers (that's me!) at pre 65 and Twinshock events and the "hop and bounce antics" rules at events for modern bikes. However, the vast majority of the observers we have are girlfriends or other press-ganged helpers that have never read the rules let alone know the difference between TSR 22 and TSR 22A. And many have never ridden in an event. I recently attended an Eastern Centre championship round and for once was determined not to observe but have a walk round instead. This was being run under the rules allowing stopping (I can never remember which is which). I noticed many riders hoping bikes both backwards and sideways without forward motion and stopping. At most sections, this was going unpeanalised, as the observers simply do not know the rules. I witnessed one rider attempt a mud climb riding around the bottom turn into the climb non stop but had 2 dabs near the top whilst another rider stopped at the bottom, hoped the back wheel sideways, then the front wheel sideways without forward motion and then bounced the bike backwards several times to get the longest run up. This second rider made the climb and did not dab once and was given a clean by the inexperienced observer. In my opinion, the standard of observing makes our centre championship a bit of a lottery as to what riders have managed to get away with. Most organisers of which I am one do not seem too concedrned about this standard of observing, just grateful to get volunteers and are very careful not to upset them. Stuart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old trials fanatic Posted November 22, 2004 Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 Far be it from me but if thats the state of affairs then why bother to have observers at all? A competition can only be fair if the rules are clearly understood by all and applied even handedly to ALL. Thats the basis of the law (or its supposed to be) in this fair land. I know observers are hard to come by but if thats the level of marking competence then why not just fill in your own marks, as that would probably be more accurate, and then the poor bugger who's been "roped in" to observe could stay in the van in the warm. I'm not having a go (well alright i am) but if the marking isnt 1. accurate and to the rule book and 2. the same for all competitors its just a sad joke. So if the observers arent up to it dont bother with any lets just pay our money, ride the sections and enjoy our bikes??? Saves a lot of hassle and if the "tin pot chasers" are that desperate for a bit of plastic then we can all have a whipround for them and get them a gold plated dummy. Sorry bad day and needed a rant. I'll get me coat then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuartc Posted November 22, 2004 Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 TSR22a: FAILURE (5) Moving backwards, sideways movement with no forward motion. TSR22b: NO STOP Twinshock< the rider who roade round the bottom of a climb crossed his own track, so should have been 5'd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuartc Posted November 22, 2004 Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 As for the handbook the ACU have pulled it because they are concerned about people quoting it online or something weird I don't agree with / understand Every affiliated member of the ACU "SHOULD" have received a handbook. The insurance company (ACU's) require it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boofont Posted November 22, 2004 Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 Wasn't the "no-stop" rule introduced to reduce the time riders spent in a section? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the artist formerly known as ish Posted November 22, 2004 Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 It's why i stopped riding events in 1997... the no stop rule. what more control over the machine can you show than to be able to hop around and keep your balance and then continue on your way... trials was defined as mans control over the machine and the terrain. I would say it is harder to do it without stopping and correcting your mistakes. The FIM have allowed stopping without penalty for the last two seasons When someone does finaly come up with the answer, will you give me a call Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody Posted November 22, 2004 Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 It's why i stopped riding events in 1997... the no stop rule. what more control over the machine can you show than to be able to hop around and keep your balance and then continue on your way... You weren't alone in stopping riding but others were for different reasons. In the 90s, the SSDT and other trials were on their knees from a shortage of riders due to the ridiculously tight and totally unrideable sections of the era that the average Joe had no chance on because they couldn't trick ride. This meant they couldn't hop and bounce and reverse themselves into the required positions to attack obstacles. In truth not many others could do it consistently either, INSIDE of the rules. Remember the 5 for a stationary dab. How many times was that given? Not many and there was hell to play from riders and minders when it was. To try and avoid it riders just carried on hopping around like demented rabbits to regain their balance and avoid the dreaded foot down, but in the end the stationary dab inevitably came during this circus act. This performing caused the endless queuing whilst riders p#ssed about for minutes on end getting lined up for several attempts to get over obstacles. This pattern was repeated throughout Nationals where average riders had absolutely no chance of getting through sections as they couldn't trick ride. Result - falling entries and as an alternative, the start of the twinshock series with traditional sections and rules. Bugger, I knew I shouldn't have got involved in this topic but I'm on a rant and roll now... I'd argue that a rider shows more control and ability by turning up at a section, inspecting it, defining what he/she believes to be the best line for a clean, or even a planned dab and then executing that ride in the planned manner. One attempt to enter and ride through the section to the ends non-stop. If you fail you fail, no second chance to attempt an obstacle again or to recover from wandering off-line because of a mistake by stopping, hopping around back on line and carrying on. Just like a golfer who can't stop and redirect the ball if it is going to miss the putt. Or the tennis player who can't stop the serve that is heading outside of the line and bring it back in. One chance and one chance only. Sure, the hopping and bouncing is extremely clever, but it is a different type of skill. If it is allowed, sections can be broken up into sub-sections and ridden a bit at a time whilst the rider stops, adjusts, has a look and goes again. Not as much thought needed to plan a line as you can sort it out as you go along. Two very different skills and approaches, the latter enables much bigger or spectacular sections, but only for the very few, and there would still be fives galore if they were observed properly. I know which I think is the purest approach and form of trials and it is the former. Anyway - Back to the original question of ACU rules and it depends on the club/centre/type of event/observer etc. etc. etc. As someone has already pointed out there are 2 sets of rules and clubs can run whichever they like for club/centre/national events. The rules that allow 'sideways' movement are open to such abuse that they are very rarely correctly enforced. Feet-up stops go unpenalised. Riders bounce bikes all over the place giving the impression of continuous forward/sideways movement but often the bike can have moved backwards in relation to the section. Some observers will give you the nod to 'do what you like lad' as 'the sections a bit tight'. Others don't know and aren't bothered. Some will let you come out of the section boundary to gain an advantage, others won't. So if all of this rambling tosh has left you still confused over what the rules are, ACU or AMCA for that matter, then that is the point. So is everyone else so you are not alone.... And no, I haven't a bloody clue what the answer is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twinnshock Posted November 23, 2004 Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 Twinshock< the rider who roade round the bottom of a climb crossed his own track, so should have been 5'd You have missed my point on this one. One rider rode the section non stop( not crossing his own line) but had two dabs, score on card 2. Other rider hoped, including backwards and got a clean on the score card! Ok to keep the debate going. I appreciate that it definatly used to be a 5 to cross your own track and many observers will give a 5 for this whilst others do not, but checking the 2004 ACU handbook it makes no mention of this ( or at least I was unable to find it). Is this a failure or not ? Stuart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neonsurge Posted November 23, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 (edited) So I'm not a (complete) fool then? Phew, that's a relief. It occurs to me that a new, 3rd set of rules has evolved for club events. If you're short of observers and have managed to rope few wives/girlfriends/whoever in, as the CofC what would you tell them in the 5 minutes before the start? It's not going to be much more than: "Foot down once, it's a one. Twice, two. Three times or more, three. Fall off or ride outside the flags, five. That's it, thanks very much for your help." And I think that works just fine at club level. I've seen riders literally carry their bikes through a section and only be given a 3. The only problem here is consistency. In additional to the previously mentioned "willing victims" there are the experienced observers, many of whom ride themselves, know the rulebook inside out and apply those rules to the letter. So you get away with a 3 on one section and get fived for the same fault on the next. But this is all part of the fun and the learning experience, especially of you tend to only ride local events. Edited November 23, 2004 by neonsurge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabie Posted November 25, 2004 Report Share Posted November 25, 2004 As for the handbook the ACU have pulled it because they are concerned about people quoting it online or something weird I don't agree with / understand Every affiliated member of the ACU "SHOULD" have received a handbook. The insurance company (ACU's) require it. True But a) I Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.