Works Riders and Clubmen

[trapezeartist]

This thread in the Montesa forum got me thinking (well, I didn't have anything else to do):

Works teams employ top-class riders to show how good the product is, and then the average (or not-even-average) clubman will be encouraged to buy the same. But is that a flawed logic? It may be that the best bike for a Bou or a Dabill is not the best bike for you or I. And perhaps a bike that they would consider uncompetitive would turn out to be the best for those of us with less exalted abilities.

Or perhaps I'm talking rubbish again.

[micm]

And perhaps a bike that they would consider uncompetitive would turn out to be the best for those of us with less exalted abilities.

In other words, the Beta 200

 

[maco]

It's unrealistic to look at most of the top riders bikes & think that riding there bike would make you a better rider. 

Obviously certain bikes are suited to certain people differently. Height & weight been certain factors.. 

Its rumoured that Bous bike costs the other side of £250,000. Personally I can't see it, but if it's correct he's riding around on a bike worth quarter of a million to make the novice rider think a £6000 bike will make him improve. If you've ever been upclose to Toni's bike you can easily tell it's no standard 300cc engine from the RR, it's more powerful. Same probably goes for the TRS, Gasgas, Sherco & vertigo riders. The top riders for them teams will have extremely expensive bikes to tempt the public to buy them.

 

Not taking anything away from the skill of the guys riding them. 

[dan williams]

I have been fortunate enough to have ridden several friends' works bikes over the years (no I'm not worthy) and no they won't magically turn you into Toni Bou or any other rider far above what you can do on a regular old production bike. This is aptly demonstrated every time an expert hops on a duffer's bike and makes it do things that seem unnatural. The factory riders are so close in ability that any slight advantage is magnified by small differences in the machines but the one thing that was consistent on the factory bikes I sampled was impeccable setup. There wasn't a stutter anywhere in the power delivery, the brakes were powerful and predictable and the suspension was finely tuned. All things achievable with a standard bike if the time is put into it. A lot of the stuff you see on Toni's bike isn't for some super trick reason. It's there because he puts demands on his engine and frame that go far beyond what mere mortals can. Machining a billet case to make sure he doesn't break his engine in half mid-trial from repeated full throttle splatters is just smart engineering. He probably has things like stronger gears and shifter forks, thicker woodruff keys, reinforced frame welds, stronger connecting rod... All things that would make absolutely no difference to us wobblers and paddlers. But when you start into the custom components it adds up very quickly and a half Mil doesn't buy what it used to.

As for making the duffer think he's Toni Bou I think we're all adults here. We all know putting down that piece of pie and practicing for an hour more would improve us more than having Toni's bike. Come to think of it how many of us actually take the time to tune our highly adjustable suspensions or have a jet kit to get that throttle response just the way we want it?

[breagh]

Well informed post Dan.

The point I would make is that modern  bikes are virtually unrideable without constant use of the clutch.

I watch beginners struggling with this every event and would probably get on better if they left the clutch  alone but the bikes can't be ridden that way.

In these parts most of our trials are won by an 11 year old ona Beta 80 you've got to ask why does everyone have a 300?

 

 

 

[jonnyc21]

It's already been said but... simply put, most would do far better on something much less than a factory replica or works bike, and as indicated if we took the time to adjust everything just that bit better with a good once over and a small tweak here and there as we practice, over time it would be of much more of an advantage to the vast majority of us.

 

my 2 cents.

[cleanorbust]

The make of bike ridden by the winner of a world round, or indeed British championship trial, has zero influence on my buying choice because I don't use a bike to do that sort of thing.

I might, however, be influenced by the experience of a rider on the same sections I ride. For example, if a clubman rider turned up on, say, a Vertigo and started getting better results than he did on, let's say, his previous Beta then I'd sit up and take notice, have a chat with him, scrounge a ride on his bike and, possibly, buy one. Or I might decide it wouldn't improve my results any more than a new tyre and a bit more practice would.

Either way, what Bou or Dabill are doing wouldn't come into it.

[baldilocks]

I think what the top guys ride just puts an idea in your head sometimes. Id always want to try a bike before actually buying one. But I also take account of how the local riders do on a bike I may be interested in. 

The two best examples are the TYZ and the 4rt. I never looked at the TYZ as a potential bike. At the time of its launch Tarres had just signed for Gas Gas and at British level Saunders,  Braybrook and shirty were riding well. The TYZ seemed dull but a friend noticed first that our level of rider after buying a TYZ did much better. So I tested one and then bought one, it wasn't capable at world level but made the clubman a better rider as it compensated for your errors.

I really did want a 4rt having never had a four stroke. Despite Bous victories no rider at my level in my part of the world has ridden better having moved to one. I can't ride one for toffee either so I haven't bought one.

 

[trapezeartist]

5 hours ago, cleanorbust said:

The make of bike ridden by the winner of a world round, or indeed British championship trial, has zero influence on my buying choice because I don't use a bike to do that sort of thing.

I might, however, be influenced by the experience of a rider on the same sections I ride. For example, if a clubman rider turned up on, say, a Vertigo and started getting better results than he did on, let's say, his previous Beta then I'd sit up and take notice, have a chat with him, scrounge a ride on his bike and, possibly, buy one. Or I might decide it wouldn't improve my results any more than a new tyre and a bit more practice would.

Either way, what Bou or Dabill are doing wouldn't come into it.

This is the sort of point I was trying to get at. Let's just say we could establish a real hierarchy of performance amongst the Worlds class riders; Make A is the best, Make B is second best and Make C is third best. Wouldn't it be possible, perhaps even probable that Make C would be the best bike for an average wobbler? Because (as baldilocks just said) it may be more forgiving, which a champion doesn't need but a novice does.

Edited January 18, 2017 by trapezeartist
Extra comment in response to an extra post.

[2stroke4stroke]

If make A had many more highly positioned riders than others you might be able to extrapolate but, really, it is the rider that is the factor at that level.  No matter the make it will have been tweaked to suit the rider and quite possibly be nothing at all like the production model, the Montesa being the extreme example of this, perhaps changed to be more like the make he came from as that's what he likes.

[b40rt]

2 hours ago, 2stroke4stroke said:

If make A had many more highly positioned riders than others you might be able to extrapolate but, really, it is the rider that is the factor at that level.  No matter the make it will have been tweaked to suit the rider and quite possibly be nothing at all like the production model, the Montesa being the extreme example of this, perhaps changed to be more like the make he came from as that's what he likes.

Pete, do you feel the 4rt has improved your results ?

[laird387]

You can't buy natural talent or skill - but you can compete against yourself, particularly when you achieve something on a machine which you KNOW is nowhere near as special as the 'stars' are riding.

But most of all you can ENJOY yourself - then you really will have WON........

And here's a photo that quite clearly shows that happening - taken, incidentally, at the very first trial actually called 'The Shawforth Shake' in 1973 (the fore runner in 1972 it was called the Bigger Banger Trial.......)

Edited January 19, 2017 by laird387
adding image

[turbofurball]

6 hours ago, jonnyc21 said:

It's already been said but... simply put, most would do far better on something much less than a factory replica or works bike, and as indicated if we took the time to adjust everything just that bit better with a good once over and a small tweak here and there as we practice, over time it would be of much more of an advantage to the vast majority of us.

 

my 2 cents.

Also, to quote a friend of mine, you can have a lot of fun by "embracing the mediocrity" - namely that by having a quirky bike and just going out to enjoy riding it can be a more rewarding pastime

I'm a rubbish trials rider, but by jove I love riding trials bikes

[rosey]

When you look back at certain points and certain bikes that were key then some generations will think differently to others, but for me, It was the 1983 Yamaha Monoshock. They didn't sell on world round results. It only won one in the hands of Thierry Girard (maybe 1988?), but when the bloke in your local club bought one, he became a whole level /class better overnight. At the next trial you tried his Mono Yam and .. WOW this is easy!!!!!.. you were ordering one on the Monday, or trying to get the money together for one. Were they £1850 back in the day? .. that's about £5900 in today's money according to those inflation calculator sites

They sold by club rider results and then other riders trying them at the trial, not world trials results. The Yamaha had a soft torquey engine and had compliant suspension. Many people don't alter their suspension and they get on and ride the bike as they come. That is one reason why many

A soft compliant bike is what 99% of riders need but probably what 1% of the riders actually WANT.

Still, if a fire breathing 300  makes you happier than a nice 160 then buy it and enjoy it.

As for the costs of 'factory bikes ( most bikes are made in a factory of some sort). I expect if you cost a few bits of carbon, titanium and unobtanium, plus a hell of a lot of man hours up you can arrive at fantasy numbers. What about all the specials made in sheds by enthusiasts? Cost them on a commercial basis and they'd be the same price.

[dan williams]

On ‎1‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 11:10 PM, breagh said:

In these parts most of our trials are won by an 11 year old ona Beta 80 you've got to ask why does everyone have a 300?

 

 

 

In my case has a lot to do with pulling my fat ass out of trouble...  mud, hills, bushes etc. A 300 need not be tuned for max power. There's no denying that low end torque is mighty useful and I find fine control easier with the larger displacement detuned then a smaller engine.

But Ron Commo Sr. always said a clubman didn't need anything bigger than a 125.

Edited February 12, 2017 by dan williams