Reading Between The Lines

[rosey]

which was easy because...................

you dont know?

A It was 'easy' because it was stop allowed?

B It was 'easy' because Raga cleaned it?

C It was 'easy' because the weather changed and dried out the sections (set out in worse conditions and with similar conditions expected on the comp. day)?

D None of the above?

Well I'd read the report on Todotrial and whilst being unable to 'phone a friend' as I don't have any... I reckon C)........ Do I win a prize?

Edited April 20, 2012 by Rosey

[nigel dabster]

So clearly exceptional cicumstances had made it easy just the same as in Kinlochleven it went the other way in 2010 was it?

ie nothing to do with either set of rules.

[nigel dabster]

The first part of your comment can just as easily happen under either rule set, you can't single out no-stop for that. Riders still seem to think it acceptable for the bike to go backwards under the stop allowed rule and aren't happy when they find they have a 5.

Secondly, that is never why the rules went from no-stop to trick riding. This happened back in twinshock days, not monos as a lot seem to think. World round riders began using the techniques on the later 80s twinshock models as a means of achieving cleans you couldn't on the older 70s models. Instead of outlawing it, it was allowed to continue and became the norm. The techniques evolved with the better bikes, just as they do now. There wasn't a conscious decision. The riders pushed the boundaries of the rules and got away with it.

As for subjective, all observing is subjective. I was observing on Sunday on a section that had a tight 180 degree turn exiting over a log. Impossible to ride no-stop even with a deliberate dab due to how you had to have the bike positioned. The only way was to hop the bike 180 degrees using mainly the back wheel to get it as far away from the log as possible, hence no use going for a deliberate dab by spinning the bike round as the positioning would have been wrong to get over the log.

Riders who coould hop proficiently - about 4 or 5 of the whole entry coped ok, (subjective) but only two cleaned every time. However, with all the bouncing on the spot and side to side, the bikes of the succesful riders are moving backwards relative to the section. I could have fived every one of them. Do you think that any of them would have thought they deserved a 5 after achieving what they thought was a clean?

Then what about the riders who couldn't hop with the consistency required. They end up hopping the back maybe once, then their foot goes down. The bike is still pointing the wrong way. With their foot down (maybe the foot on the wrong side) they keep lifting the back wheel and dropping it sideways. If they have their 'wrong side' foot down, it starts to disappear under the sump as the back of the bike comes around. To avoid this they 'creep' their foot around with the bike without actually lifting it. What sort of score does that warrant? a dab? a two, a three? We know what they think they should have - a dab. Never mind the farce of being able to to be stationary with a foot down bouncing the back end around half a dosen times...

It's always subjective, regardless of the rules, you can't attribute that to no-stop only.

Don't say the section was too tight, as isn't it the kind of section the youngsters want and we are told they need to develop these hopping skills.

This is where a rule change has less to do with the argument as c o c marking out badly?

If you are interpreting rules, then its a bad choice of section marking, more than which rules?

Or are you saying no stop would demand a more reasnoble section?

OR (sorry!) no stop is more difficult for marking sections in our centres?

[woody]

This is where a rule change has less to do with the argument as c o c marking out badly?

If you are interpreting rules, then its a bad choice of section marking, more than which rules?

Or are you saying no stop would demand a more reasnoble section?

OR (sorry!) no stop is more difficult for marking sections in our centres?

The particular section itself I'm not criticising and wouldn't say it was marked out badly as it depends upon what you want from a section. Not my idea of a section but it was ideal for riders who want the challenge of having to hop about to get the bike lined up for the next part of the section. A typical modern section if you like, which is what some are saying is needed to bring people on.

Only point I'm making is that both sets of rules can be subject to 'subjective' interpretation of what a rider has done. In the modern way with all the hopping, it is often evident that riders move the bike backwards with all the hopping they do. Not specifically hopping directly backwards as used to be the way, but by repeatedly hopping both front and back wheels (or both sideways but against the run of the section) many, many times so that the context of what they are doing is clouded, they get the bike in a more favourable position and they have moved it backwards from the original starting point.

That is a 5 - but when do you ever see it given and when would a rider ever expect to be given one?

Same with no-stop - what's a stop, what isn't.

Both styles open to subjective interpretation. But some will only have it that it's only no-stop that causes problems.

[pete_scorpa3]

I had a look through my old videos to see if I could find one that demonstrates what Woody is saying. I did find this one of Becky Cook in the Colmore from 2009 (the fact that it is Becky has no particular bearing on the subject, it could have been any of a number of riders.)

This was the last time the Clubmans championship was run under TSR22a Stop allowed. Therefore, a rider could stop without penalty, but any backwards movement is a failure.

How would you score this ride?

No critisism of the rider, or the observer intended, so I won't go into the score given, but just a demonstration of how even stop allowed rules can be difficult to judge.

Pete

[bmseven]

Well she clearly went backwards at 7 secs and 29secs but I suspect it was just marked as a single dab.

As a new rider and wanting to help out at events it is a complete minefield to ever consider observing at a trial

[chris12]

Although slightly off topic, I feel it relevant to post on this thread regarding people's suggestions toward changing the championship.

There are several championship's already on the British scene that cater for what people are suggesting on here. The Normandale and Sammy Miller series cater for Twin Shock, Pre 65 etc. The S3 series already caters for non-stop so in my opinion, why make the British Championship non-stop too? In the S3 series, riders like James, Michael, Alexz, Dan, Ricky etc cant score points as it's a "Clubman Series" which is nonsense as I'm a Clubman and I ride the 50-50 route as not good enough to even tackle the harder sections so it's not really a Clubman series.

All they have done here is allowed the top riders to score points as the top S3 riders all compete in the "New" British series.

Going back to lower quality tyres is also a massive step backwards. Why develop something as good as we have now to throw it away? If people want to compete on lower quality machinery, ride in a lower quality series!

The question must be "what are the ACU trying to achieve"?

If it's producing a new World Champion then this is surely the wrong way to go. Back in the 90's when Doug was taking the world by storm, even he was dropping more at a British round than at a World round. OK, you can say that maybe only Steve Colley and Graham Jarvis could cope and the likes of Crawford, Shirty, Braybrook et al were merely making up the numbers so we had a scenario similar to what we have now but, I think, Doug would say having a comparable National scene helped on the World stage.

As people have already said on here, the numbers to last year are comparable, there's just fewer classes. All this has done has allowed good A Class riders to ride the Championship route.

If Dabill and Brown have ambitions of becoming World Champion, this series isn't going to do them any favours at all. They need to be riding to the FIM rules to prepare them for it.

If we are going back to non-stop, then surely the top riders should be crying out for a Series encompassing Trials such as the North Berks Super Trial. The only way our top riders will ever compete with Bou, Raga etc is to ride the hardest terrain possible.

The British Championship, in my opinion, should be a spectacle, something that showcases the talent that these riders have. It's not about bike sales, people by what they do through personal preferences, all bikes have their pro's and con's and everyone would be on a Montesa if it was!!!

For me, and this is personal opinion, British and World Trials is about the spectacle, having the hair stand up on your neck, having your breathe taken away, not caring that it is pouring with rain because what you have just witnessed is unfathomable, unbelievable, completely incredible!

Rant over.

[b40rt]

I had a look through my old videos to see if I could find one that demonstrates what Woody is saying. I did find this one of Becky Cook in the Colmore from 2009 (the fact that it is Becky has no particular bearing on the subject, it could have been any of a number of riders.)

This was the last time the Clubmans championship was run under TSR22a Stop allowed. Therefore, a rider could stop without penalty, but any backwards movement is a failure.

How would you score this ride?

No critisism of the rider, or the observer intended, so I won't go into the score given, but just a demonstration of how even stop allowed rules can be difficult to judge.

Pete

So clear cut a 5 I'm surprised you use this as an example !

[woody]

So clear cut a 5 I'm surprised you use this as an example !

But is it?

Yes Pete, this perfectly illustrates the point I was making about observing decisions being subjective.

Standing there watching, or watching it on the video, yes, you can see the bike goes backwards relative to the section direction. Rider lost control twice and whilst trying to sort it out, went backwards both times. Definite 5 (under either set of rules as it happens)

Under no-stop the rider could be under no illusion that they had done anything other than stopped forward motion (if they were honest or realistic about it)

Under stop and hop rules, being stationary wth foot down whilst maneouvering the bike is allowed which is what the rider is doing. What may not be apparent to the rider is that during this maneouvering they have gone backwards and they will be mighty surprised to be told they have fived it (when a 5 is given that is).

Which is the point I was making in response to Telecat's claim that this sort of confusion only happens under no-stop.

Both sets of rules throw up these issues, not just one or the other.

As far as what score was given, I'd guess a 1 or 3, doubt that a 5 was given. In situations like that, the observer generally doesn't see it as going backwards, same as when a rider is rocking back and forth when stuck on roots/log/rock. Very rarely a 5 for rocking backwards (which can happen under no-stop as well).

[totalshell]

clearly in the example above, the rider scored five, twice they went backward. 5 best reflects thier attempt. clearly they could not ride the section without stopping footing and reversing. so 5 is a true reflection of that attempt at that section..

[timp]

I'v not heard of anyone be influenced by all these views on what is the right or wrong rule so basically your all wasting your typing fingers!!

This argument has been going on for years and will continue for years.

The simple and obvious remedy is to run both "Non-stop British championship" the same as the world championship rules and "Stop-allowed British championship". All it needs is a championship class in the S3 championship. This can be toughened up if necessary to the required severity to suit the standard of riders but leave the expert class and clubman route alone. Riders can ride what rules they want then.

[pete_scorpa3]

Possibly a good suggestion.

However, wouldn't another British championship simply dilute the status of the championship winners?

And what if some riders decided to stick 'easier' with the 'non stop' championship, would the organisers be happy to put on events for less than ten riders?

[big john]

Oh God, this could (and probably will) go on forever!

I am beginning to realise that there is no real solution to the low entry at the British Championships. And anything that is done is going to be argued and argued and argued.

I have heard talk about a special championship of invited UK riders with mega sections.

OK that might suit the top ten riders in the UK, but as it's been said many times before, can clubs (and the ACU) really be bothered putting on a trial for 10 or so riders? Hmmm... I'm not so sure.

Big John

[atomant]

This is a really interesting thread with a lot of educated sensible comments ........ but getting back to the point, ultimately, what is the BTC aiming to achieve? It obviously is not to prepare the best riders in the UK for the European and World rounds so lets just forget all this arguing and accept for at least this year, it will be no-stop and lets see if we can make it as good as it can be:)

CoC's .....its all in your hands !

[totalshell]

the BTC seems to be a championship / individual trials that the countries better riders might want to ride to see how they can do against other bette riders from around the country.

i dont remember its primary purpose being anything other than that, certainly i ve never being aware or seen stated thats its core aim is to prepare riders for the world championship? isnt that something for the european championship?

messers dabill and brown had the previous benifit of such world championship std trials to prepare for the WTC and thus far sucess as adults has eluded them.. and everyone else.

the route is clear.

if you fancy your chances of hop skippity jump go south if you want to ride traditional british trials fill yer boots!