baldilocks Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 I buy raptors because i got 5 years out of the first set not because they are light. But you are right on the other stuff. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigel dabster Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 I just think that the FIM appear to be trying to find the quickest way to f up the sport/manufacturers/riders. ie 290cc? no stop not correctly enforced or sections designed to suit? No help with transportation/start money to flyaways despite tie up with dhl? new minimum weight that means current bikes are underweight (except 1)? Theirry Michaud thinking he knows best? No introduction of further improvements/accessability promised in 2013 and so on. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baldilocks Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 Its not that often I say this but I agree. Its just badly thought out or not thought out at all. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dadof2 Posted January 6, 2014 Report Share Posted January 6, 2014 I agree that there are some riders who like the lightest most tricked up bike they can have, but I know of many more who are fed up with bikes that break too easily. It depends on how you ask the question as well. If rule changes are portrayed as merely increasing they weight of the bike they will be unpopular. but if the benefits are explained such as lower cost or greater robustness and reliability they are much more likely to be accepted. The pro gearbox is a brilliant piece of design and is fine for WTC and supported riders, but for clubmen on limited budgets its just too weak. Beta on their 2014 models have made modifications aimed at reducing sump guard flex and the damage it does to the engines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveo Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 quote name='nigel dabster' timestamp='1388831240' post='352657'] I just think that the FIM appear to be trying to find the quickest way to f up the sport/manufacturers/riders. Looking at many changes that have been implemented over the last 10 years or so by FIM, has been a major contributing factor why Trials has declined so dramatically in my opinion. Governing bodies of other countries throughout the world must also shoulder the blame as they immediately put in place these changes that have no benefit for the NORMAL riders who make up this sport. Regulatory bodies from all countries should always put the welfare of riders under their control first and foremost. Keeping on changing to be in line with WTC rulings is a farce, and the same old drivel of giving the top riders of each country the chance to ride under international rules is utter nonsence. If youngsters possess the talent to be on the world stage they should be in Europe competing. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigel dabster Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 I agree that there are some riders who like the lightest most tricked up bike they can have, but I know of many more who are fed up with bikes that break too easily. It depends on how you ask the question as well. If rule changes are portrayed as merely increasing they weight of the bike they will be unpopular. but if the benefits are explained such as lower cost or greater robustness and reliability they are much more likely to be accepted. The pro gearbox is a brilliant piece of design and is fine for WTC and supported riders, but for clubmen on limited budgets its just too weak. Beta on their 2014 models have made modifications aimed at reducing sump guard flex and the damage it does to the engines. Your view of "explaining" seems not to follow commonsense. Tell me which manufacturer is going to increase the weight of their bike and change production simply because the few bikes they have in the wtc? I think this is where you are following others propaganda as the pro gearbox has never given me any trouble on the 5 gassers ive had ever. No one would deny that initially in 2004ish there were problems and the vulnerability if the gear lever is given a big whack but for clubman its not a problem. We all know the make of gearbox that has been difficult since its launch and that is not a gas gas. I would suggest the converse is true, if it works at wtc with the stresses and strains it has at that level it must be good? When was the last time Raga or brown had a problem with their box in an event? Didn't Gas Gas win the team award at the SSDT, and the Scott? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biffsgasgas Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 None of the manufactures are advertising over 70 kg other than Montesa for the 2014 model years. So if its going to be inforced I don't see the manufactures following in their adverts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gasgas249uk Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 None of the manufactures are advertising over 70 kg other than Montesa for the 2014 model years. So if its going to be inforced I don't see the manufactures following in their adverts. Biffs , the weight increase had nothing to do with production bikes . It's just the bikes being ridden in the WTC. They can still make their perfection bikes as light as they want Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dadof2 Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 #111 I don't believe any manufacturer is going to increase weight unless they are forced to by the rules. I acknowledged that Gasgas seem to be reliable at WTC and supported rider level but these bikes are near new and presumably rebuilt frequently or at the first sign of a fault. very near every gasgas i know has had to have its gearbox rebuilt, some more than once. I also know of quite a few riders who like and have had gasgas but are now on other makes and wont even consider buying another gasgas until the gearboxes have been improved, take a look on the Beta UK site at the SSDT preparation guide. Many of these problems could be solved by larger heavier parts eg fasteners, radiator, front mudguard. Look at the ridiculous rear sprockets - all machined out (extra cost) to save weight then they have to stick plastic (more cost) back on to cover holes. How about the following simple rules - sprockets and brake discs shall be unperforated. Brake discs.minimum 5 mm thick. brake discs inner and outer edges to be circular. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biffsgasgas Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Biffs , the weight increase had nothing to do with production bikes . It's just the bikes being ridden in the WTC. They can still make their perfection bikes as light as they want Hrmmmm well then looks like I need to find that Mecatechno or Merlin I have always wanted because they could be made as light as that. If they wanted to, I know that the manufactures, could remove another stone from every machine out there but the cost would be double what it is now and as durable as a Fantic section... (sorry most fragile bike owners ever) --Biff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigel dabster Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 #111 I don't believe any manufacturer is going to increase weight unless they are forced to by the rules. I acknowledged that Gasgas seem to be reliable at WTC and supported rider level but these bikes are near new and presumably rebuilt frequently or at the first sign of a fault. very near every gasgas i know has had to have its gearbox rebuilt, some more than once. I also know of quite a few riders who like and have had gasgas but are now on other makes and wont even consider buying another gasgas until the gearboxes have been improved, take a look on the Beta UK site at the SSDT preparation guide. Many of these problems could be solved by larger heavier parts eg fasteners, radiator, front mudguard. Look at the ridiculous rear sprockets - all machined out (extra cost) to save weight then they have to stick plastic (more cost) back on to cover holes. How about the following simple rules - sprockets and brake discs shall be unperforated. Brake discs.minimum 5 mm thick. brake discs inner and outer edges to be circular. Your anecdotal evidence doesn't ring true to the majority. Whose rules are you referring to above? It aint going to happen, it would serve little purpose to the ordinary man, out there are thousands and thousands of bikes which would never comply with your rules so move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axulsuv Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Hrmmmm well then looks like I need to find that Mecatechno or Merlin I have always wanted because they could be made as light as that. If they wanted to, I know that the manufactures, could remove another stone from every machine out there but the cost would be double what it is now and as durable as a Fantic section... (sorry most fragile bike owners ever) --Biff That last bit almost hurt !!!): Glenn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zippy Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Hrmmmm well then looks like I need to find that Mecatechno or Merlin I have always wanted because they could be made as light as that. If they wanted to, I know that the manufactures, could remove another stone from every machine out there but the cost would be double what it is now and as durable as a Fantic section... (sorry most fragile bike owners ever) --Biff I had a 95 Fantic Section, I found out that you don't want a rock to touch anypart of the clutch cover.......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dadof2 Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) Your anecdotal evidence doesn't ring true to the majority Gasgas themselves acknowledged they had (still have?) a gearbox problem by redesigning part of it so it can be changed without splitting crankcases. Whose rules are you referring to above? It aint going to happen, it would serve little purpose to the ordinary man, out there are thousands and thousands of bikes which would never comply with your rules so move on. Not my rules - simply a suggestion to cut costs and increase durability - obviously could only initially be applied to new bikes and would need to be done in negotiation with manufacturers. I have had / have quite a range of trials bikes. The solid disced TYZ and pre 2000 Gasgas had single piston calipers (cheaper than dual piston) and yet the brakes were any amount powerful enough with low pad wear. By contrast my post 2000 gasgas and Betas have perforated discs and twin pistion calipers, The brakes are more expensive to make, pads and discs wear faster and are easier bent and the brakes are far more powerful than needed. The transition to a more sustainable sport will not be to the liking of all - a bit like benefits cuts Edited January 8, 2014 by andy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigel dabster Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Everyone not on benefits like benefit cuts surely? Not sure that the analogy works with RULES. Answer the question WHOSE RULES? A suggestion to cut costs wont work if no one buys heavier and outdated technology, surely? A little extra cost for pads changed 2 or 3 times a year isn't going to make someone take up the sport/or leave, is it? Far more important is the manufacturers getting together and producing a loss leader starter bike for youths (a la ty80) that's where we need our focus getting more in the sport not changing what works fine whether it be rules (made by the fim or acu) or adding weight. 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.