Fim Minimum Bike Weight Increase 2014? What?

[dadof2]

There seems to be an assumption by some that the sport of motorcycle trials is in a healthy state, it is not, its barely struggling to keep going. BVM has just gone and there are other dealers barely viable or possibly operating at a loss and hoping things will pick up. The continual development of lighter and more fragile bikes had / has to stop otherwise the sport would disappear up its own blinkered backside.

Of course riders will nearly always want what they believe to be the most competitive bike and that is why restrictions on development has to be by rules, not voluntary action by individual manufacturers. You only have to look at what Graham Jarvis can do on a relatively heavy enduro to realise that a minimum weight of 80 kg would not spoil trialing. If the sport wants to increase participation it need to lower costs and increase reliability. If bikes are not sold in greater numbers there will never be enough money to provide supported rides to talented riders, and more bikes will not be sold until they are perceived as being better value for money.

[outlaw dave]

I have to agree with the dad of 2 - the sport is not in good shape, but over here in the Colonies (Canada) we try yo to encourage people to come out to events by hosting camp-outs where "Over- weight" riders, can sell their ideas around the camp-fire. - Usually it doesn't matter next day what the bike weighs.

[mr neutron]

Dadof2,

I hope this is taken as respectfully disagreeing.

If the sport wants to increase participation it need to lower costs and increase reliability.

In my view, having ridden trials bikes a little in the 70s (not for very long, and not in competitions), I feel modern bikes are MUCH more reliable than the old bikes. This has been my experience at both mx & off road riding, and no disrespect is intended here to twin shock riders, vintage riders, or any other group of older bike riders. Most of them would tear me a new bung hole in a competiton, being much better riders than I am. But myself, and the majority of folks I ride with with, have no desire to go back to the older, heavier bikes. the liqid cooled top ends, chains, ignitions, carburetors, transmission, tires, clutches are all much better than what most of the older bikes had, and with no weight penalty. Just because you add weight to a bike, it doesn't magically become more reliable. Besides, as often as i crash, I need a light bike to pick up, hee hee,,,,,,,

And the next statement may be one that most will find they don't like, but I've never been one to shy a way from confrontation....... I personally don't see that lighter bikes or non-stop trials will save the sport. I feel that in comparison to most any other motorcycle sports, Trials is pretty boring to the non enthusiast, or to new riders, It just flat does not have the draw & "action" that motocross, enduro, road racing, or other disciplines of motorcycle racing have, and maybe never will. I see it as primarily a facet of motorcycling for riders with a certain type of personality. I'm not good a verbalizing exactly what that type of personality is. In my trade I work in, as a machinist, it's necessary to develop a very detail oriented type of mentality to do well at the craft. So it is with Trials, I feel. It has an appeal to riders who appreciate the "finesse" aspect of the sport.

Contrast that with the jumping, berm-busting, and airtime of mx, and it's pretty easy to see why young & new riders (and spectators) are drawn to motocross, rather than trials, at least here in the States.....

Now, to me, Trials is anything but boring. I realize what a challenge it is, and how hard it is to master. I love those aspects of this riding style. But to most folks out there, if you suggest "Let's go watch an Observed Trials tomorrow", or say "Let's go watch a Supercross tomorrow", which do you think most folks would do? My wife & I met at a motocross track. She is a photography freak, and used to like going to my mx races & practices (to photograph the fast guys, not me....). But getting her to come to Trials is hard. she just feels it's not as exciting to watch as mx, and would rather trail ride than attempt Trials.Trials has to compete with these other types of motorcycle riding, mountain bike riding, other recreational past times, as well as suffer through miserable global economic downturns, lack of riding areas, and things like that.....

I don't think weight restrictions will do it. Not convinced non-stop will help much, either. Less expensive bikes, maybe. That would possibly draw folks into Trials if it were cheaper to do than mx, enduro, or whatever else Trials has to compete with these for rider dollars. At my club, it seems like we're having some slow growth, and a bit of that seems to be from offroad/enduro guys that want to use trials as a way to build or improve their offroad skills. I rode with one such guy at our club's event this past weekend. But it seemed as if we had more riders this weekend than we normally do.....

Now, these are opinions on my part. I don't mind being proven wrong, and even more so it it drives out a solution that does help increase ridership & sales. Those are the signs of a healthy past time, and we can all agree, we'd like to keep riding.

Jimmie

Edited January 30, 2014 by mr neutron

[nigel dabster]

There seems to be an assumption by some that the sport of motorcycle trials is in a healthy state, it is not, its barely struggling to keep going. BVM has just gone and there are other dealers barely viable or possibly operating at a loss and hoping things will pick up. The continual development of lighter and more fragile bikes had / has to stop otherwise the sport would disappear up its own blinkered backside.

Of course riders will nearly always want what they believe to be the most competitive bike and that is why restrictions on development has to be by rules, not voluntary action by individual manufacturers. You only have to look at what Graham Jarvis can do on a relatively heavy enduro to realise that a minimum weight of 80 kg would not spoil trialing. If the sport wants to increase participation it need to lower costs and increase reliability. If bikes are not sold in greater numbers there will never be enough money to provide supported rides to talented riders, and more bikes will not be sold until they are perceived as being better value for money.

You don't listen to one word do you or counter any statement with reason? Not one comment in 12 pages has said trials is in a healthy state, this whole thread is supposed to be about the ridiculous rule change by the FIM (Fiddling In the Margins) at WTC level not what you and your mates have experienced or the heavy bikes you want at local level.

for the fourth time whose rules?when and where would these be enforced? and how by having heavier bikes would it make one person join the sport? No one has said heavier bikes would spoil trialing its just not wanted or else you would have a successful company selling heavy parts, surely you can see that?

or maybe not?

And graham Jarvis is a typical rider of a heavy bike?

Reliability isn't an issue for most. We all want a cheaper sport but there isn't a demand for cheap bikes as bliss proved with his cheap Chinese thing and the scorpa 125 a few years back.

Edited January 30, 2014 by nigel dabster

[nigel dabster]

. BVM has just gone and there are other dealers barely viable or possibly operating at a loss and hoping things will pick up.

I hope this isn't true?

[tony27]

I did the change to a 7kg or so lighter bike in 2000 with no loss of reliability & found that the lighter bike was easier to control in 99% of situations.

I much prefer having a bike that I can ride as well at the end of the day as the start than 1 than wears me out, no way would I enjoy a multi day trial as much if at the start of the next day I was sore & tired from fighting with a heavy bike the day before

Certain bikes do have problems but I don't think adding weight in the effected places would be possible without major redesigns & what manufacturer would do that not knowing if the rules are going to change overnight again

Earlier on in the thread Motogp was mentioned as having had the rules changed for the better, have you seen how badly costs have increased since the change from 500cc 2strokes?

Edited February 2, 2014 by tony27

[eddie_lejeune]

Earlier on in the thread Motogp was mentioned as having had the rules changed for the better, have you seen how badly costs have increased since the change from 500cc 2strokes?

and how bad the racing has got.

[laser1]

Dadof2 - What is the basis for your claim that heavier and cheaper bikes will improve the trials market as a matter of fact. I think this is perhaps a "logical" assumption, but not one born out by the market from what I can see. (see my previous comments on eco bike et al.)

[dadof2]

Any market research company or company marketing department will confirm that lack of reliability is a big turn off for customers and damaging to brand reputation.

The lower the cost, the more is sold (all other things being equal) this is known as price elasticity of demand and is well established, the only uncertainty being the slope of the price demand curve for a given product at a given price.

A minimum weight rule is the FIMs and it would be up to them to discuss further rule changes with the manufacturers. It would also be up to the FIM to decide if they wish to push this further down via negotiations with national bodies such as the ACU.

I am not in favour of increasing the weight of bikes just for the sake of it, it is because I believe bikes are now so light it is affecting reliability and increasing costs and is to the detriment of the sport. I think the ideal weight of a trials bike would around 75kgs or a shade more. At this weight the radiators could be a shade bigger, the sump shields and engine casings a bit thicker, gearbox internals more robust, discs and sprockets need not be perforated, frames a bit stronger and the use of exotic difficult to repair materials such as titanium and magnesium avoided.

I too regret the demise of the 500cc 2 stroke in motoGP and even more so in motocross where the move to 4 strokes has seen an increase in costs and a decrease in reliability.

A few days ago I looked at a 125cc 4stroke Chinese trail bike new for £999. upside down forks, reservoir gas shock etc. There is absolutely no doubt that a decent 250cc trials bike for less than £2k could be build if there was a decent sized market.

[eddie_lejeune]

There is absolutely no doubt that a decent 250cc trials bike for less than £2k could be build if there was a decent sized market.

this is true, but new manufacturers springing up won't help things. Look at Ossa selling 900 bikes a year- what use is that?

[canada280i]

I don't think that using Chinese built bikes is a good example, you only have to look at the number of them broken or in need of some repair going cheap on kijiji. Yes they are low cost and mass produced but also notoriously unreliable.

Also, 900 bikes a year isn't that bad for a relatively new company in a niche market, how many 4rts were sold last year? More choice is better for the consumer, without these smaller companies you would be restricted to a choice of maybe 2 or 3 , what fun would that be?

[breagh]

My point would be the majority of modern bikes suffer massive depreciation in value.

Round about 50%n in the first 2 years I would guess.

No doubt due to them being built in a serviceable but fragile way(VAT 20% doesn't help)

This must put many like myself off buying new.

However.as we can't even make a decent set of snail cams here who am I to judge?

[canada280i]

Everything suffers massive depreciation in the first couple of years, look at the loss on a new car the moment you drive it off the lot. Same for parts, remember when bumpers were actually metal and would take a knock, nowadays they are plastic which just cracks, and then look at the replacement cost, ridiculous for a chunk of molded plastic.

I don't see this fragility in trials bikes, just look at the purpose it is built for, riding over rocks will likely result in damage, that's the nature of the sport.

[nigel dabster]

Any market research company or company marketing department will confirm that lack of reliability is a big turn off for customers and damaging to brand reputation.

The lower the cost, the more is sold (all other things being equal) this is known as price elasticity of demand and is well established, the only uncertainty being the slope of the price demand curve for a given product at a given price.

A minimum weight rule is the FIMs and it would be up to them to discuss further rule changes with the manufacturers. It would also be up to the FIM to decide if they wish to push this further down via negotiations with national bodies such as the ACU.

I am not in favour of increasing the weight of bikes just for the sake of it, it is because I believe bikes are now so light it is affecting reliability and increasing costs and is to the detriment of the sport. I think the ideal weight of a trials bike would around 75kgs or a shade more. At this weight the radiators could be a shade bigger, the sump shields and engine casings a bit thicker, gearbox internals more robust, discs and sprockets need not be perforated, frames a bit stronger and the use of exotic difficult to repair materials such as titanium and magnesium avoided.

I too regret the demise of the 500cc 2 stroke in motoGP and even more so in motocross where the move to 4 strokes has seen an increase in costs and a decrease in reliability.

A few days ago I looked at a 125cc 4stroke Chinese trail bike new for £999. upside down forks, reservoir gas shock etc. There is absolutely no doubt that a decent 250cc trials bike for less than £2k could be build if there was a decent sized market.

Wrong and wrong again, when will you realise you are talking rubbish.

market forces and basic economics do not work for trials, the overall number of bikes sold is not directly related to new bike costs, not in our world anyway.

The demand for new bikes would not vary greatly if heavy out dated bikes were 2k peeps wouldn't want them, or else the randonner from gas gas and previously the cheap 125 scorpa would have been a rip roaring success?

The fim rule would only give you what you want if the weight were put where you want and the riders of the acu clubs agree to it. They wont. And they are happy to accept all the 2014 bikes and previous years are obsolete?

The changes you want would mean new casing casting new rads new frames etc etc and that bike aint gonna be 2k.

not counting the increased size of gearbox and on and on.

Even if it was a good idea, its not as most bikes are pretty reliable anyway,the manufacturers wouldn't do it en masse so no one will anyway.

WAKE UP!

[baldilocks]

Fundamental problem perhaps is not enough people want to ride in the first place and thats related to many more issues than bike cost.