nigel dabster Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 Now this is where I am going to sound like a scratched recored, if the aim was to make trials easier would that not be a reason to expect more riders? What were the aims? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baldilocks Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 im talking about trials in general not btc or any other series / event dabster. My reason for easier trials is for a clean to mean the rider didnt actually have a five but the observer ignored the rider stopped or went backwards. BUT if we are all happy with minor roll backs and brief pauses then thats fine. trouble with present situation is interpretation differs section to section trial to trial. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timp Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 If the Scottish was observed to the letter scores would be way different to what we see now. There is often a touch of leniency even with the tough observers as they give the benefit of doubt to the rider. From what I see with the British Championship the basic fault is its too hard. Doesn't matter what rules are run. It's just too hard for the majority of riders!! How to get a balance to suit the all the riders is the problem and I don't think you can. So basically they may as well just go back to having 10 riders on the very hard route to suit the top lads and the rest on easier routes. Not a great problem so long as there are clubs prepared to run the events like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigel dabster Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 "BUT if we are all happy with minor roll backs and brief pauses then thats fine. trouble with present situation is interpretation differs section to section trial to trial. " Funnily the section 15 observer at scarborough was observing stop allowed on the easy route and no stop on the top route. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigel dabster Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 From what I see with the British Championship the basic fault is its too hard. Doesn't matter what rules are run. It's just too hard for the majority of riders!! How to get a balance to suit the all the riders is the problem and I don't think you can. So basically they may as well just go back to having 10 riders on the very hard route to suit the top lads and the rest on easier routes. Not a great problem so long as there are clubs prepared to run the events like that. Ok so you want more riders on the top route, why? In the yorkshire centre is there a demand for the expert route to be easier to get more riders riding the hard route? why are the two different? no stop is not right or wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baldilocks Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 yes i have come to the conclusion sections are just too hard to be observed properly rather than it being about the rules. non stop or stop permitted both require a degree of leniency which puts undue pressure on the observer. Realistically the clerk of the course needs to set out sections that the expected riders can ride within the rules of the event. IF we could agree this as a principle we may be able to work forwards from there. at present when setting out a trial you often dont know how it will be observed. This has to change in my view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigel dabster Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 I do also believe having observed an S3 section earlier this year that judgement calls in no stop are so much more critical, a stop is it thats a five. I remember a five at scarborough I got must be 10 years since in a normandale and Woody was there and I said to him after the section was that a five? still p****s me off now. Its a 5 if you stop but its not so hard to score stop allowed. Still think one for a stop is the best way forward then that eliminates a judgement call on the stop and 1 versus 5 doesnt have the force in an argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_scorpa3 Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 "Still think one for a stop is the best way forward then that eliminates a judgement call on the stop and 1 versus 5 doesnt have the force in an argument." The 'One for a stop' rule would have been brilliant if we had been able to use it properly. The problem was that almost no one ever did. Those rules were, by necessity, impossibly complicated to use. One for a stop.... no problem. But so was one for a dab. So a stop with a dab was two. To prevent riders from stopping to adjust their bike, it was a five if you took your hand off the bars whilst stopped.... the different combinations of ways to loose a mark made it extreemely difficult to remember and more importantly to expalin to a new observer. I know I was never marked two for one stationary dab. So what happened? Most but not all Observers just marked the number of times a rider put their feet down. Hence Stop allowed crept back in by default. If we could design a mechanical observer that could be programed and always gave the correct mark, then Stop for a One would probably be the best system. In reality, we have to have a system that is easy to understand as well as popular with riders. This is where we're stuck for now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timp Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 "stop for a one" worked very well for us for years. Observers liked it. Riders liked it. Our observers certainly didn't have any problem understanding it. We would most likely still be using this rule if the FIM hadn't gone back to stopping rules. In fact one of our local clubs was still using this rule up till last year. I have asked many riders and observers about the rule and nearly all said it was a good compromise and would like it back. Funny thing is that it seemed most observers observed correctly but the tendency was for some southern observers to ignore the 1 for stopping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigel dabster Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 which is why if there had been a comprhensive discussion about what we were trying to achieve maybe someone would have suggested a halfway house of stop for a one? Bugs me cos if the rules were only slightly different to fim then it might be more accepatable to the top riders whilst giving scope for no stop sections and then we could say yes its working ok sections are more straight forward now we go no stop? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iconic558 Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 5 = no forward motion...? ....I have been to trials and watched some real talented riders hop, bounce, twist & wiggle for so long it looks like the M-25 queue for the Dartford crossing building behind them....fantastic to watch though! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigel dabster Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 .......which is why a time limit was introduced. Section length then comes into play aswell so you nearly end up with a no stop section because of length/difficulty, best of both worlds? 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.