ally or steel frames

[toofasttim]

Dadof2, please don't take this as an attack I realise that this and my previous post could be construed as aggresive but they're not.

Anyway, if those points you stated are important to you why not ride twinshocks?

[old trials fanatic]

Having owned and enjoyed many bikes with both types of frame construction I have noticed the compactness of the steel frame makes maintenence,servicing,and general access to most components of the machine much easier. All the new bikes offer amazing capability for the money , as well as being quite reliable for many seasons of fun !

I would be in favor of lowering the minimum weight rules to allow the continued improvement of the bikes ,as well as allowing the sport to progress into the future. Limiting some component materials could make cost sense as mentioned earlier in the post.

Been watching this thread with interest but now we are onto minimum weight limits etc plus "allowing the sport to progress into the future" i think the sport has "progressed" (discuss) enough and perhaps too far in that it has "progressed" to a point way beyond the capabilitys and asperations, a LOT of people dont even desire to do some of the truly amazing things that the top guys can do who would be the only people who would derive any benifit from removal of the minimum weight limit, of "normal" people. All that would happen as has always happened in the sport is that sections would then be made even more ridiculous and we are rapidly approaching the point, if we have not already arrived, that some very serious injuries are waiting to happen because the bikes are so capable of things we never dreamed of but the outcome if we the rider gets it wrong dont bear thinking about.

All forms of motorsport have realised that they cant just carry on regardless and that some limits need to be applied. Some have gone for a control tyre most have introduced some form of minimum weight limit, usually due to pressure from the manufacturers too low a limit, but they have all had to introduce some form of limitation to firstly keep the sport something like affordable to the majourity not just a select few who never buy their bikes anyway but also for safety reasons. In the trials world we also have another problem that of suitable land. If the bikes get ever more capable there will be such a lack of suitable terrain to test that capability that organisers will struggle to hold trials as we know them so the sport as we know it will die. It's already on life support. How would that be "progress" ? There is already a fall off in people wanting to take up the sport, well modern trials, as it is becoming so far removed from what they perceive as dooable that they take up something else.

Good thread though i always enjoy technical discussion but you should always look at "progress" and decide if where you would be "progressing to" is where you really want to be?

Edited November 2, 2011 by Old trials fanatic

[toofasttim]

Um, err, ah...

Like you said not many folks ride their trials bike to its limit, most are quite happy riding trials that would have been possible on a Greeves Anglian. But they get the ego trip that they are riding the latest tackle. Yes sections and events at some levels have reached the point where folk could get hurt. But surely this is their option. You can, if you're not sure, ask for a 5.

As far as serious injuries are concerned I think the last person to be seriously hurt in a WTC event was Martin (not Dougie, although he's had his share of injuries) when he got a SWM or Bulto (can't remember which) in his face from a ten foot drop at Watkins Glen in what would have been the late '70's or early '80's.

Drop off in rider numbers? Yes very possibly but I doubt that's as a result of dangerous sections more likely its a function of the dismal economic climate. Trials has always attracted people who, after taking a cursury look at the sport, decided that it was easy and discovered that it was very difficult indeed, even at club level. These people leave the sport when they realise that their ego can't take the constant humiliation and it doesn't take long.

So have the incredibly competent and ultra light bikes of today resulted in dangerous sections and a drop off in numbers? I don't think so. Not for the majority of weekend plonkers. Is the sport more expensive than it was 30 years ago? Again, I don't think so.

[dadof2]

"Dadof2, please don't take this as an attack I realise that this and my previous post could be construed as aggresive but they're not.

Anyway, if those points you stated are important to you why not ride twinshocks?"

It's fine - I know emails can look a bit "sharp" even when thats not the intent.

I am certainly not against progress but as another poster has pointed out, what is progress? Single shocks - excellent move, adjustability, low wear and you don't bend them when you fall off. Water cooling + nikasil - excellent - means a well cared for engine never needs a piston or barrel/ rebore.

I think the latest gassers are very good, especially the functional simplicity. However I also know of far too many gassers (and other makes) where a bit more metal would make them more crash resistant / less prone to premature failure and and a change to weldable material would make them easier to repair. I know of quite a lot of people who are less happy with the sport than they could be due to costly bike breakages.

I have both alloy and steel framed trials bikes and favour steel, but how long before someone bings out a ultra light / ultra slim dural frame?

I think a minimum weight limit of maybe 75 or 80 Kg would be a good move.

Cheers

[gasgas249uk]

I can understand the arguements , but i for one would hate to see the weight race stop.

It'll be a sad day if bikes get heavier , not lighter. Making bikes lighter wont effect reliability as the factories know we wont buy and as for sections getting harder.....they arnt at my club and centre trials and thats all im bothered about.

The WTC is a good show , but has little bearing on my life

[camberman]

I agree that it would be sad to see the bikes get heavier. A 55kg limit would be a great incentive for the factories to continue the development and evolution of the machines and increase the potential for even more impressive obstacles and techniques to conquer them. I also believe that a lighter machine would reduce the likelyhood of injuries resulting from the rider being struck by the machine in a fall and increase the odds of avoiding a crash in the first place.

I really don't understand why any fan of the sport would want to limit the "raising of the bar" at the top levels of competition. There are classes for all abilities and it should be up to the individual to choose what line feels right for their own personal challenge.

Both the factories and the top riders in the world have worked very hard over the years to achieve today what many of us could never have imagined years ago. Why limit their potentials for the future???

Has anyone considered that some new participants might actually be inspired by the highest levels of Trials,rather than being repelled ?

[laser1]

Hasn't the market answered these weight questions? I think its upto the individual consumer to decide what tradeoffs are best suited to them. If a bike is heavy, the mfg will lose some stop and hop customers. If a bike is unreliable - same thing. IMHO - Its best to let the chips fall where they may and dont try and regulate the sport to death.

[jimmyl]

Anybody have accurate weight figures for say the latest gasgas frame compared to a evo frame for example. Ignoring swing arm and suspension etc. Might be a cost/compactness issue rather than weight?

[dadof2]

Glad my original post led to a significant number of comments.

Laser1. situation may be diffentent in US, my experience is northern England. A weight limit is hardly over regulation - its simple and easy to check / enforce. Manufacturers could still compete by other improvements.

The fact is that despite all the development / loss of weight trials bike sales in UK are very low and a cut in price would lead to increased sales (price elasticity of demand)

A bit of extra metal on the exhaust system for example would reduce noise - a problem for land access in some areas.

As an example from another sport (100 national karting). This used to be heavily price regulated and 3 to 4 grids of 20 to 30 karts were common at club meetings. The price regulations were relaxed resulting in significant cost increases and within a year or 2 entries were down to about 30, ie about 25% to 30% of the previous numbers.

I know the general drift of my views is in line with the views of at least 2 top flight riders (Multiple Scott and Scottish six days wins between them)

Cheers

[for artie]

Seen any bikes break in two recently (Gasser s/arms by world level riders excepted )? C'mon we've never had it this good. The amount of maintenance the average rider puts into his bike is at an all time low. Modern bikes are as reliable as anvils.

Yes, I've seen a steel frame failure recently due to the lack of fork stops. the sharp edge of the triple clamp hit the frame tube , creased it and it not long after it broke...all due to the lack of fork stops. Crikey! bikes have had for stops for 100 years.

[for artie]

It'll be a sad day if bikes get heavier , not lighter. Making bikes lighter wont effect reliability as the factories know we wont buy

You are wrong...some factories design their bikes knowing that there is a segment of the market that will accept less reliability in exchange for a lighter bike.

[for artie]

I think the current superlight steel frames should be considered disposable, needing periodic replacement, like the bicycle frames they resemble.

Here is proof of my point.

[sherpat]

I think the current superlight steel frames should be considered disposable, needing periodic replacement, like the bicycle frames they resemble.

Here is proof of my point.

So someone's opinion on the internet is your "proof"?! Good one!

Seems like all those that are opposed to the new and lighter technology in this thread, either ride vintage bikes, or 4RT's! Draw your own conclusions.

[for artie]

You are wrong...some factories design their bikes knowing that there is a segment of the market that will accept less reliability in exchange for a lighter bike.

This is the point I was trying to prove. That some buyers are willing to compromise on long term reliability in exchange for short term weight loss.

If you read both of my previous posts you'll understand. Sorry I couldn't figure out how to do the "mulitquote"

Edited November 4, 2011 by for artie

[stevenorton]

getting back to the original post... There is not much difference between alloy and steel regarding strength to weight . Alloy frames are not much lighter because they are alloy. The difference comes from the size of the frame. You get a stronger frame from bigger tubes / section etc. To make that from steel would mean a steel tube or member that would be too thin and easily damaged. Alloy can be made much thicker to give more resilience . The main problem with using alloy is that , to put it simply ,Aluminium is a stress sponge . Unlike Steel which providing it is not bent beyond its elastic limit, will never snap. Aluminium will store every stressful input then snap. Thats why airplanes have a life measured in flight time. When a part such as a frame or spar has done the required hours regardless of whether there is noticeable signs of wear it is replaced . There are different design constraints with using Aluminium as well, you can't just exchange Aluminium for steel. I wonder if at the design stage they computed the life of the frame?