nigel dabster Posted March 26, 2014 Report Share Posted March 26, 2014 If most countries adopt minimum weight limits at their nationals (following the FIM standard, like no stop), then the manufactures will adjust their production bikes weight according. The build quality should follow and bike quality will rise to a standard somewhat higher than it is now.......as it can't get any worse! I dont follow this argument at all which is why I asked such a facetious question. If the wtc does something the federations may or may not follow suit. Even if (big if) they do we would all have underweight bikes at club level and above are these bikes to be banned? Would he manufacturers make heavier bikes because the wtc says so or as they will im sure this year just add lead to bring the bikes up to weight? For example how would beta increase their weight? The frame is fine and has a hydroform mould would they change that? if not what else? and who would pay for this increase in cost to develope a heavier bike? what components would you make heavier to make more reliable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guys Posted March 26, 2014 Report Share Posted March 26, 2014 For example on a GasGas (but many things also apply to other brands): Make the frame tube walls a bit thicker (or use that awesome USA steel! ) so you don't have to fear for cracks when you're a bit over weight. Make the kickstart gears a bit stronger so when people who haven't heard of the correct starting technique don't damage it. (I still see people taking a big wack at it) I would alter the water pump seal so the water can that passes the seal finds a way out without entering the gear box and possible ruin some bearings. Get a proper sealed fan motor. Get rid of the plastic exhaust end peace. Make the brake master cylinders of a better material and with better seals so they last a bit longer. Add some grease nippels to the rear link bearings for easyer maintenance. I don't know if it adds weight, but I would get rid of the antique carburetor and install a high tech fuel injection. Use proper sealed electric connectors instead of the home made crap that they use now. Please don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of lightweight stuff but I also like a bike that's reliable... 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dadof2 Posted March 28, 2014 Report Share Posted March 28, 2014 Just finished servicing the hydraulic brake (shimano) on a mountain bike. Seized slave cylinder piston was the problem due to corrosion. The bike is 2 years old. What this has in common with trials bikes is the lack of dust boots to protect the seal / piston / calliper bore from corrosion and it is very common to see trials bike with brake corrosion problems at 2 to 5 years old, sometimes much sooner Contrast this with some road bikes and cars I work on that have dust boots, in the past year I have worked on cars and motorcycles from 1980 to 1998 and all were on their first calliper strip and rebuild. To give this increase in reliability would mean having the callipers a few mm wider, the pistons a few mm longer. The cost would be a few pence for the dust boot and machining its mounting grooves in the calliper and piston. The weight penalty ? maybe 300 gammes on a bike. Whilst i agree with the FIM increasing minimum weights, they need to go further and regulate materials used and component designs or they weight rules may primarily result in added lead solutions, not cost reductions or reliability improvements. The new Jitsie sprocket because of the sharp machined edges on its faces will still make a right mess of any flesh unfortunate enough to go between the side of the sprocket and the swinging arm. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw Posted March 29, 2014 Report Share Posted March 29, 2014 For goodness sake guys, think about this for two seconds. Who would honestly say they prefer to ride a heavier bike than a lighter one????? There is no weight related reliability problem with current trials bikes, end of story. Talking about it just clouds the issue. I had a TY175 in 1975, and the frame broke in half, the brakes were constantly a pain, the shocks bent and leaked oil and I could go on and on. People seem to have very short memories. My son bought a new Gas Gas 6 months ago after riding pro level MX for many years. 150 hours later and basically NOTHING HAS BROKEN. One rear wheel bearing collapsed after 20hrs, but replaced it with a quality bearing, (same weight), and no more problems. The quality and reliability of these bikes is brilliant. A 250cc 4 stroke MX bike, by comparison, is written off at around 80 hours when used by a good rider. Don't blame what Ossa did on weight, it was just poor attention to detail and not enough testing. Luckily, logic is prevailing, and many countries are considering their riders and the sport, and ignoring the politics of the FIM. No reduction in weight limits, and no change to non-stop. The sad reality, however, is that fewer people will be riding FIM trials events, and trials will ultimately be the loser. The FIM should change the rules back urgently, but no doubt their ego's and wallets will not allow that. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twinshocked Posted March 30, 2014 Report Share Posted March 30, 2014 There is no weight related reliability problem with current trials bikes, end of story. Phew! that 's a relief. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heavydabber Posted March 30, 2014 Report Share Posted March 30, 2014 (edited) Personally, I think that this increase in the minimum weight limit is more geared to reducing (or cutting out altogether) the use of expensive, exotic materials.Ultimately the aim, I think, is to keep prices down. Face it, let Honda loose with their cheque book and you could have a trials bike that weighed as little as a mountain bike, but at what cost? How much is a 4RT Repsol even now compared to the opposition? I remember the Japanese works GP motocrossers of the late 70's and early eighties. Price and the available materials of the time were no object.The fact that each bike was trashed by the end of the GP was seen as a price worth paying for development and success. But it wasn't sustainable, Who'd buy a production MXer that needed a total rebuild after each meeting, it's expensive enough as it is? So they increase minimum weight limits and manufacturers have to use plain old steel instead of titanium and carbon fibre. They did it in the late eighties and early nineties in 500 GP road racing. Suzuki and Schwantz had a considerable weight and manouverability advantage before. But Suzuki weren't stupid, they used being obliged to add weight to the bike cleverly, bracing the frame to make it stiffer and stronger. Which made it more crash damage resistant and therefore a bit more sustainable. So the rules achieved their aim. Look at the number of current manufacturers in the game - Gasser, Ossa, Sherco, Beta, Jotagas, Scorpa, Montesa/Honda, Tarres off to start something new, Dougie Lampkin involved with Vertigo. How many of those will be left by the end of next year (or get off the ground at all) with prices and therefore sales the way they are? It goes back a bit, but remember the days when the UK Montesa, Bultaco and Ossa importers all sold 1000 bikes a year each. How many do the UK importers even sell between them now? And would there still be a market, say, for a modern mono trials bike with an air-cooled head and barrel? Food for thought.....? Edited March 30, 2014 by heavydabber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laser1 Posted March 30, 2014 Report Share Posted March 30, 2014 (edited) Personally, (as I have said before) I think the market should decide. If somebody believes a modern mono trials bike with a air cooled head and barrel is the answer, then they should produce it and reap the rewards of an exploding market that has been waiting for such a bike. If they are successful, the others would surely follow. It seems to me that all the modern bike OEMs have followed a long history of technical innovation in developing the next best thing. Maybe this is the time for something different, but I seriously doubt anything the FIM mandates will be the answer. (at least from this shoot from the hip - no market data based group now in place) NONE of the modern OEMs are selling tons of there cheaper, heavier bikes as compared to the light weight and expensive versions. Forcing them to do so to grow the market is not a rational conclusion. NONE of the 2t OEMS have publicly supported any of the changes. In fact, all the new bikes seem to fly in the face of the new rules. Interestingly, The videos of all the WTC riders practicing seem to indicate they haven't given up on the stop and hop techniques either. To those folks who point out that the OEMS arent forced to change, only the WTC riders, then I would ask what good are the rules then. There supposed to help drive sales somehow. It seems backwards to me. In the past, weight limits were put in place to protect the small manufactures that didn't have the deep wallets of the big three who could outspend everyone else to gain insurmountable advantage. Now, its the small guys with the advantage and the big ones pulling for the changes for regulation to remove the competitive advantages. I say produce what you want and let the market decide. If your a big manufacturer, use your extensive engineering to win the market. Or Even maybe your extensive marketing group that can unveil the huge market for next big thing in trials - heck, maybe even a low cost, super reliable, air cooled mono. If all you (FIM) can come up with, is "well something had to be done", then sorry, I doubt many will rush to follow your lead. (I point to exhibit A - this long thread) Cheers. Edited March 30, 2014 by laser1 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr neutron Posted March 30, 2014 Report Share Posted March 30, 2014 Maybe riders could simply use heavier oil in their forks? 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw Posted April 1, 2014 Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 Not so sure about all the brands, but a standard Gas Gas uses almost no exotic materials, and the price of a new bike is relatively cheap. When I was buying Betas and Shercos 10-15 years ago they were around $7000-$8000 in Australia, and a new bike isn't much more even now. The prices of raw materials used in making bikes are between 2 and 4 times the prices they were 10 years ago. Oil is many times more expensive. The current crop of 2t trials bikes are around the minimum weight limit with almost no 'exotic' materials, just good design. I know we would like things to be even cheaper, but bikes are not going to come down in price regardless of the weight. The 'middle class' in the entire western world is becoming poorer, and nothing is going to make them buy more bikes in the short term. The bottom line for me is that I am not going to go to the first round of the world championship here in Australia next week. While on one hand I would like to support the distributors, clubs and all those who work hard to hold the event, I am simply not going to support what the FIM is doing with my attendance. Unfortunately, not attending is the only voice I have. I hope others do the same. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guys Posted April 1, 2014 Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 I understand your point but I don't think not going is the solution. At least I'm going to the world Championship when it's held in Belgium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigel dabster Posted April 1, 2014 Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 Personally, (as I have said before) I think the market should decide. If somebody believes a modern mono trials bike with a air cooled head and barrel is the answer, then they should produce it and reap the rewards of an exploding market that has been waiting for such a bike. If they are successful, the others would surely follow. It seems to me that all the modern bike OEMs have followed a long history of technical innovation in developing the next best thing. Maybe this is the time for something different, but I seriously doubt anything the FIM mandates will be the answer. (at least from this shoot from the hip - no market data based group now in place) NONE of the modern OEMs are selling tons of there cheaper, heavier bikes as compared to the light weight and expensive versions. Forcing them to do so to grow the market is not a rational conclusion. NONE of the 2t OEMS have publicly supported any of the changes. In fact, all the new bikes seem to fly in the face of the new rules. Interestingly, The videos of all the WTC riders practicing seem to indicate they haven't given up on the stop and hop techniques either. To those folks who point out that the OEMS arent forced to change, only the WTC riders, then I would ask what good are the rules then. There supposed to help drive sales somehow. It seems backwards to me. In the past, weight limits were put in place to protect the small manufactures that didn't have the deep wallets of the big three who could outspend everyone else to gain insurmountable advantage. Now, its the small guys with the advantage and the big ones pulling for the changes for regulation to remove the competitive advantages. I say produce what you want and let the market decide. If your a big manufacturer, use your extensive engineering to win the market. Or Even maybe your extensive marketing group that can unveil the huge market for next big thing in trials - heck, maybe even a low cost, super reliable, air cooled mono. If all you (FIM) can come up with, is "well something had to be done", then sorry, I doubt many will rush to follow your lead. (I point to exhibit A - this long thread) Cheers. Excellent comments 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twinshocked Posted April 1, 2014 Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 Personally, (as I have said before) I think the market should decide. The market has decided. It is down 75%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
breagh Posted April 1, 2014 Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 I wouldn't blame the design of bikes for lack of sales. Trials is like secret sport that exists on the fringes. As I've said before there's plenty folk want to ride trials,they just don't know about it yet. Instead of tinkering with rules that effect about ten riders why not a plan to promote trials at grassroots? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony27 Posted April 2, 2014 Report Share Posted April 2, 2014 (edited) Anyone who wishes for a return of the numbers of riders & bike sales of the 70s should look at overall sales figures of all bikes compared to then to see just how few new bikes are being sold in comparison Unfortunately trials doesn't really appeal to the average younger rider due to the discipline etc needed, most of the younger guys here in NZ who have been riding grew up with their fathers riding & it was natural for them to ride with them, now they're older have all taken up enduros etc & done rather well at it Edited April 3, 2014 by tony27 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
breagh Posted April 2, 2014 Report Share Posted April 2, 2014 Good points Tony. I would say in Scotland we have more Trials in a month than we have enduro's in a year and the Mx scene is pretty fragmented too. If you want to ride most weeks Trials is the only off road option. I estimate our average club member is about 40/5 years old.. The older lad's obviously have a bit more cash and also seem happy to take trials as a fun day out on the bike. Youths are a problem,even the good ones don't last. But as long as they're making new 40 year olds I think it will work out. 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.