dan thorpe

[helloyes]

What does everybody think about Dan Thorpe's open letter to the ACU regarding no-stop etc ?

[des]

it could be a good thing, but not for all riders, some like to bounce their way around but others can't bounce so the section is made hard for that reason.

The section may become easier in that way but just as difficult to clean all the same, lets see what happens we have to remember some clubs already use non stop so we do have a choice when looking for events.

Edited December 9, 2010 by des

[ishy]

I would like to read it, any links ?

[Andy]

Dan's original letter:

With dwindling entries in many trials on the main route, it is time the ACU acted to change the rules so that there is just one method of marking in use - TSR22b.

At WTC level the sport has become elitist with very technical sections and many big steps/jumps. As each rider is allowed to position their machine into any exact position, the sections have changed to suit the riders with tighter and tighter turns and bigger steps. This has filtered down into club trials which has alienated many riders who elect to either ride the easy route or not at all. This has resulted in the severity of the so called easy route increasing to suit the new (higher) standard of riders, and many proper 'clubman' dropping out of our sport.

A change to no-stop will mean that the sections do not have to be as technical and difficult, as it is harder to ride a section without stopping than being able to stop, regain balance and re-position the machine. This change will also reduce queuing times (and observers stood out in the cold), as some riders can take 3-4 minutes in a section without the 90 second time limit in place.

This change has to come from the ACU as local clubs will always opt to take the easy way out and waste time arguing over what may or may not happen if they change. The clubs will never voluntarily make the decision to change, as they will see it as putting their heads on the block if it doesn't work. Also, the riders that are against the decision will end up leaving their home club and go to another club who still use the stop permitted rules to ride, which is another reason why clubs won't want to take a chance and maybe lose some of their riders.

The change to no-stop in the Novogar Championship has certainly been a success - the evidence is in how many entries they have had for each event. I have ridden in most rounds in this series for nearly 15 years, and have noticed how the severity of the sections has changed this year - making events that are both challenging and enjoyable for many (not just the top) riders. The winning scores have stayed similar but the scores further down the results are a lot closer than before. This is mirrored in club trials with the more successful clubs using the no-stop rules. The ACU need to act sooner rather than later; as entries are worryingly low for some of the clubs which run stop-permitted events.

Giving the clubs the option to choose to run either TSR22A of TSR22B simply leads to confusion with both the riders and the observers and therefore conflict towards them. Having travelled many miles to National events around the country, where the riders and observers do not know what rules the event is running under (on many occasions) is not acceptable. A counter argument has always been that changing to no-stop will increase in arguments between the riders and observers - this is where I also feel that the ACU must act. There should be strict guidelines in place for punishments to riders that argue with officials. For example, a 'three strikes and you're out' policy where after an initial exclusion from the trial: 1st offence = 1 month ban, 2nd offence = 6 month ban, 3rd offence = 1 year with the possibility of permanent exclusion. At the moment, riders do not know the consequences for offensive behaviour to officials, and are therefore not

afraid of causing conflict.

Hopefully this change can take place sooner rather than later. I understand the argument that the BTC does not want to change unless the WTC changes, but I feel that the WTC has lost its way and we would be better acting now and let the WTC follow suit when they see the difference that I am sure it would make.

Yours in sport

Dan

N.B. I see that the Novogar series has changed name to the 's3 Parts ACU National Clubmans Championship'. This needs addressing, as 'clubmen' usually do the easy route in a trial. Unless the main route of the trial has its own championship - 'clubman' needs dropping from the title. The introduction of an easier route has been a success in 2010, so I feel that it does deserve its own championship but strict eligibility guidelines need to be in place in order to qualify for points.

And the ACU response:

Thank you for your e-mail dated 22nd November which was discussed at the Trials & Enduro Committee meeting the following day.

As I am sure you know, this subject has been discussed many times and although under the current rules, Clubs & Centres do have the option of running under TSR 22B, the majority have chosen not to do so.

With this in mind, the situation does not indicate that one or other system should be made compulsory and therefore there are no plans to change the current rules at present.

Regards

Trials & Enduro Committee

[baldilocks]

Its a well written letter, I think the sport does need to look at the number of very good riders now riding middle or easy course as the top class is dwindling in numbers in Northern trials that I attend.

I dont think the rules help but people expect an easier day at a trial now and certainly dont want to lose 50 marks +. I often do lose more than 50 but i'm sticking with the harder route while I still enjoy it, not always but most of the time. I think once I start riding the middle course there is no going back as the top class is the only one thats progressing in terms of severity.

the other side of the coin is that I'd rather people dropped down a course than dropped out altogether. Ultimately if things carry on we may see locally what we have at national and international level were the step up to the top class is just too big for people to bridge.

The answer is in the hands of the CoC, sections dont need to be dangerous to take marks, Cabestany lost marks in section 3 or 4 at the SSDT on day 1 for example. BUT big or dangerous sections will drive the older riders to the middle course.

just my view.

Edited December 10, 2010 by Baldilocks

[emmo1]

One or two thoughts in no particular order;

1.We have got to have one set of rules.

2. Dan's home centre runs one of the best nationals in the calander (Jack Wood) - they make great use of the land available, and generally the sections are easier to ride no-stop!

3. The guys riding genuine no-stop at the Scott a few weeks ago were better to watch and generally made a better fist of the sections

4. World rounds are brilliant to watch - but not a realistic reflection of what 99.9% of trials riders do most Sundays.

5. We all enjoy a trial that tests us, without breaking man or machine. As there is a much greater spread in abilities and ages these days the only way is to offer several courses.

For what it's worth my ideal is no-stop, with as many classes as the club can cope with to please as many punters as possible!

[ishy]

Not just a well written letter, it makes a lot of sense, I hope other well known riders and importers think this also and back Dan up, more rider participation benefits all in the long run.

[baldilocks]

Not just a well written letter, it makes a lot of sense, I hope other well known riders and importers think this also and back Dan up, more rider participation benefits all in the long run.

Sorry, yes it makes a lot of sense before anyone suggests I didnt think Dans letter made sense !

[pete_scorpa3]

Dan's letter reflects the thoughts of a lot of riders, sadly as long as the FIM WTC is 'stop allowed' the ACU will continue to offer this option to event organisers, creating this issue.

Possibly the best thing that could happen is the FIM going 'non stop' then we could all follow and end up with one rule for all.

Don't expect that anytime soon.

[telecat]

As I continually point out both rules MAKE SENSE. Most Riders Like the freedom to stop even if they are not "Hoppers". Mainly this is because most trials set out as "No-Stop" cannot be ridden this way. The so called "problem" with rider numbers goes back to the Foot and mouth of the early years of the Century. Youth riding was decimated and has only just started to recover. We also lost riders to MX and Enduro on "closed course" events. Some of these are coming back but we need to maintain venues that will not be affected in the Future. In the Yorkshire Centre Spen, West Leeds, Horsforth and Yeadon Guiseley all run to "Stop" or TSR22A and get good entries. Of those that run TSR22B the biggest entries are at the Acklams Ripon Evening trials where the course is pretty easy. That shows one thing, some riders just will not entertain a trial where they drop too many marks. Where is the challenge?? A course that only puts you up a minor obstacle in a section is not going to make a centre or National Rider. Getting the balance is difficult but Forcing rule changes could only cause further damage to Trials.

As a further thought Yeadon Guiseley until 2 years ago ran to TSR22b and suffered from numbers dropping. The rules were changed to TSR22A and we have seen the numbers stay the same at Club Trials, and improve at Novice/Beginners. Centre Trials seem to rely on Location and reputation.

Edited December 11, 2010 by Telecat

[copemech]

As I continually point out both rules MAKE SENSE. Most Riders Like the freedom to stop even if they are not "Hoppers". Mainly this is because most trials set out as "No-Stop" cannot be ridden this way. The so called "problem" with rider numbers goes back to the Foot and mouth of the early years of the Century. Youth riding was decimated and has only just started to recover. We also lost riders to MX and Enduro on "closed course" events. Some of these are coming back but we need to maintain venues that will not be affected in the Future. In the Yorkshire Centre Spen, West Leeds, Horsforth and Yeadon Guiseley all run to "Stop" or TSR22A and get good entries. Of those that run TSR22B the biggest entries are at the Acklams Ripon Evening trials where the course is pretty easy. That shows one thing, some riders just will not entertain a trial where they drop too many marks. Where is the challenge?? A course that only puts you up a minor obstacle in a section is not going to make a centre or National Rider. Getting the balance is difficult but Forcing rule changes could only cause further damage to Trials.

As a further thought Yeadon Guiseley until 2 years ago ran to TSR22b and suffered from numbers dropping. The rules were changed to TSR22A and we have seen the numbers stay the same at Club Trials, and improve at Novice/Beginners. Centre Trials seem to rely on Location and reputation.

Having read all this, I see some light via Telecat!

Although my personal life within the trials is short as compared to many, as within this decade, we here were once under the no-stop rules for a period of time. As a new rider at the time, I found it somewhat offensive, as the slightest pause or hesitation within a section could get you a 5, reguardless of your ride. Rule of the day for many was to disreguard momentary stops, count to three, like the Scottish! but many were not that generious! 5!!!

I am old, cannot hop, may occasionally pause to regain composure within a complex section. If lucky, I can balance! If I do , well? jnhj! 5! In the end, total BS!

Can I just take a rest for a 1 if I can? Please! If I was on a good day and did manage a rear hop in the section, could I justtake 2? Can the marginal old f-stick take the slight hesitation without a 5?

If taken to rights, if the spokes stop moving, you are done!

[pete_scorpa3]

Having read all this, I see some light via Telecat!

Although my personal life within the trials is short as compared to many, as within this decade, we here were once under the no-stop rules for a period of time. As a new rider at the time, I found it somewhat offensive, as the slightest pause or hesitation within a section could get you a 5, reguardless of your ride. Rule of the day for many was to disreguard momentary stops, count to three, like the Scottish! but many were not that generious! 5!!!

I am old, cannot hop, may occasionally pause to regain composure within a complex section. If lucky, I can balance! If I do , well? jnhj! 5! In the end, total BS!

Can I just take a rest for a 1 if I can? Please! If I was on a good day and did manage a rear hop in the section, could I justtake 2? Can the marginal old f-stick take the slight hesitation without a 5?

If taken to rights, if the spokes stop moving, you are done!

I understand what you are saying, and yes we've all been given a five when we thought it should have been something else, but equally we have all been given a clean when we weren't expecting to have one, it's all part of the sport.

I personally prefer riding stop allowed, although I can't hop and bounce very much (and certainly not good enough to make it worth doing) however, I do feel that we should have one set of rules for all.

Non stop, as Dan points out, makes trials flow better, means that sections can be more straight forward and for me as a Clerk of the Course, eliminates many of the 'cheat/not a cheat' lines that riders always seem to find by bouncing to and fro.

If a stop is a five, then that's the rule and I don't see a problem. Modern society doesn't allow loosers, everyone has to be a runner up.

Trials has fallen into this category; so often a rider who gets to the ends cards with just three careful dabs get the same score as someone how scrabbles and crawls and stops for a breather. Now that's hardly rewarding the better rider who had three careful dabs.

This is only my take on the situation and to be honest I'm just happy to still be able to enter a trial, regardless of the rules and long may it continue.

Pete

Edited December 11, 2010 by Pete_Scorpa3

[woody]

I am old, cannot hop, may occasionally pause to regain composure within a complex section. If lucky, I can balance! If I do , well? jnhj! 5! In the end, total BS!

No, not total BS, it's the original concept of trials - get from A to B without stopping by inspecting the section, finding a line that you think will achieve it and making an attempt. If you get in a mess you use a foot, once or more than once to get out of it, not be allowed to stop and correct the mistake penalty free. The whole point is you pay for getting off line by losing marks. If you don't think you can clean a section you pick a point for a deliberate dab to get you over the hazard instead of going for a clean you know you can't achieve and ending in a heap. Trials was the thinking man's game and all about plotting your lines to achieve a no-stop ride. The rule is when the front spindle ceases forward motion, not when the spokes stop turning, that has never been a rule

Couldn't be more simple really.

This isn't the first time Dan has written to the ACU, I remember a similar letter a few years ago. I also favour the no-stop rules but don't think we will see it happen again with the FIM, therefore there is no reason for the ACU to make a ruling which is why I guess they'll continue to give a choice - not a bad solution to my mind at the moment as it seems to work well.

Favour for one set or the other varies from region to region in the UK but on a national level it's not hard to see which are the better supported events, those with no-stop rules. The skills required to compete on BTC and WTC are way beyond the vast majority of riders. You only have to look at those events to see that the sport isn't really attracting new riders at those levels, the names of the top WTC 6 has barely changed in 10 years and few show any signs of breaking into it. The BTC has changed a bit but there are still only about 4 riders in with a chance of a win and not enough to fill all the point scoring positions. The national events with no-stop rules are well supported and some exceed the maximum entry and have to decline entries so it's not hard to see what the majority prefer.

At the moment I think we have the right compromise by allowing the choice but it will be interesting to see how things progress over the next few years.

[ishy]

A course that only puts you up a minor obstacle in a section is not going to make a centre or National Rider.

A while back in order to try and produce more national caliber riders our club started making the sections a lot tougher, it didn't take long to find out it was the wrong move and it scared many riders away, the damage was done and those entry numbers have never been the same again.

[telecat]

A while back in order to try and produce more national caliber riders our club started making the sections a lot tougher, it didn't take long to find out it was the wrong move and it scared many riders away, the damage was done and those entry numbers have never been the same again.

Many Clubs tried and failed to create one course for all riders. It's not feasible without top locals complaining about the course being too easy, and clubmen complaining it's too hard. Hence the split in courses at Club events. We also now have separate events for the Novice and Beginner which are very successful. Even Centre and National events have easier classes. These let our top national riders compete on the same event with the best club and centre riders. It's a matter of where you want to pitch your event and you have to listen to ALL the riders not just those who Always turn up.