Why Did They Fail?

[cleanorbust]

Not saying that new riders aren't a good thing, just that letting the sport continue in its well established low key manner is OK, as opposed to trying to grow it into something it's not and never has been. The bigger we become, the more unwelcome attention we attract.

Besides, I don't want to join a queue of 200 riders at the first section!

[breagh]

No no,the more the merrier and don't think a trial is just about sections.

Some trials are like an undertakers waiting room with organisers that got thrown out of the gestapo for cruelty.

Truly awful for casual riders.

Most riders up here want a day on the bike,if there's a queue they just nip back to the shed for a quick coffee.

We run over 20 events a year never had any unwelcome attention,we're all nice people.

Who could possibly complain?

[cleanorbust]

The more the merrier, up to a point.

I'm fortunate to belong to a club which has its own huge practice ground available to members 24/7. I often meet riders there who are happy to spend their hard-earned on new bikes and quality gear. I like to engage these folks in discussion and we get around to why they don't enter trials. They typically respond:

-they don't think they're good enough to compete (they are)

- they don't want to commit to riding on a particular date, would rather turn up and enjoy themselves when they have time

but mostly:

- they have given trials a go and can't see any point in paying money to queue at sections, they just want to ride their bikes

Pushing entry levels much beyond the current local level of 80 to 100 could have some current competitors thinking the same way. Could it be that there is a natural optimum capacity for some clubs and venues, beyond which enjoyment suffers, and we are close to it in some areas? If achieving 100 entries is good, would it be a success if promoting the sport brought two or three hundred along?

I am aware of land being tragically lost to trials through the selfish actions of some riders adopting known trials venues as their practice areas. I worry that within increased numbers there will be a larger cohort of such idiots, and we haven't been able to stamp out this problem over the years.

On a personal note, I know that Breagh and myself have both enjoyed a long life of trials enjoyment - I remember when you started! - and we both have trials' best interests at heart. Hope I'm not coming across as a miserable pessimist and if I am at least we're enjoying a good discussion.

Sorry I've led this thread so far from its original subject.

.

[baldilocks]

Manufacturers fail through not selling enough bikes and parts or by spending too much on R&D and riders. I think the problem now is that whilst participation is up a lot of people never buy a new bike anymore. New bike prices need to come down for more sales to be achieved but manufacturers dont realise that. £5000 for a new standard bike is a lot for most people.

So manufacturers need to reduce costs or the supply chain between themselves and the customer or increase income in other ways.

[0007]

I think one of the problems is with the level of quality and performance that is being made

Compare it to cars, if the same model were applied all manufacturers would be making their equivalent of a Ferrari and no one would be making a mustang or camaro for substantially less money

Or compare it to street bike manufacturers making only big bore race bikes

Everyone competes for the same high end customer and no one can sell enough volume

Sure it pushes development but we do need a cheep entry level bike

I wonder if it's a case where manufacturing costs are not low enough on the entry level stuff to get the price tag down

Or the ego of the big names involved with the new brands won't allow them to walk before they run