dman Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 I agree with Sam on the bike part, not the top part at all, but we seem to be going back and forth on the same stuff again... I won't comment on that. I've seen a Beta Alp with a 400cc suzuki engine with trials tires (like 1998 model or something), torquey trail bike with excellent traction. Pretty much a trials bike with bigger tank, seat and looks of an enduro. Pampera like... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mich lin Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 Ishy, glad we agree on the bike formula. It could help save motorized recreation and get people off race bikes and onto a greener, lower impact motorcycles. Working with the forest service and the federal government is tough! The future of the sport will perhaps be on private land with events like your Wendsday night events and the Bill Markem organized ITS winter and summer series. PITS has been on the forefront of this trend by buying their own property, from the profits from their world round. They also have favored club status at places like Frank Raines state park because of their excellent self policeing like you mentioned the PNTA does. For our club to get into the national forest is almost impossible! We have had better luck with the BLM, who likes us a lot but the places we end up tend to be like garbage dumps and areas that when trials are organized there the number of stolen cars abandoned and the gang shootings tends to go down for the few hours we are there. It does make the illegal alien gardeners mad, they can't dump yard clippings there nearly as easy when trials people are there. I suppose you can't make everyone happy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brendan Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 And If you want a machine with a bigger tank and seat, they exsist! there called Xr's, TTr's and Dr's just put trials tires on em and they are half the price of any new trials bike! (spellings tuff) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Those don't work. I have been using those types of bikes, and they are not anywhere close to being as good of a trail bike as a trials type machine. They are too heavy, too big, and 1st gear is not low enough. Try turning one of those 300lb. plus pigs around in a tight rocky ravine, or on some narrow goat trail on very steep hillside, and you will see what I mean. I have discovered that a trials bike has the closest representation of perfection, when it comes to overall balance of suspension, weight, tractability, engine characteristics, and gearing. The much lighter weight also really helps with the slow speed handling, and reducing trail impact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyclist Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 Brendan, Maybe you should check out the Gas Gas Pampera. Not a super long range but it does have a seat and is a good cross between a trials bike and an enduro bike. -cyclist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mich lin Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 The Pampara is a pig, not anything like the Alpena that Bultaco used to make. The Alpena was a Sherpa with a wide ratio gearbox, bigger seat and 3 gallons of gas. It was a good trials bike and enduro bike, while the Pampara is not good at either. What the FIM should formula into the world championship is a bike similar to the 1976-82 Bultaco Sherpa. It had a nice seat,way over a gallon of fuel on board and was comfortable on the trail and was the match of anything in the sections. If you take a ride on one of these bikes today after riding a modern bike you will be amazed at the comfort and fuel capacity. The 240 Fantic is also a nice ride! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick1 Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 You guys are way off the mark. Multipurpose bikes don't cut it. Especially when its a trials / something else. Yes, the dual purpose on off-road bikes aren't bad, but even those are not excellent at one or the other style of riding. Multi purpose bikes just don't work. The reason more people don't ride trials bikes is that they are simply too expensive, probably because of low production numbers, but that is why people don't buy/ride them. In the good old days when trials was much bigger everyone had a bike for every occasion. Even as a teenager I was able to buy a new bike every couple of years just from paper route money, kids just can't do that anymore and neither can the parents. Today, the average person can't afford multiple, single purpose bikes. Back in the 70s and early 80s just about everyone had a couple of relatively new bikes, now it's just too expensive. Hell, I can buy a top of the line KTM enduro for the same price as a trials bike. On top of that there is a whole lot more technology in an enduro/mx than there is in a trials bike. People have to choose between one or the other style of riding. I choose trials like many of you, but most of the other, younger, hormone raging, younger guys choose the fast bikes. Make the bikes cheaper and more people will buy them and more people will enter events. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mich lin Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 I don't beleive we are talking about Multi-Purpose bikes, we are talking about how highly speicalized trials bikes have become. They have NO seat and carry very little fuel making them impossible to do anything with but ride a short loop and some sections without refueling. All while riding on the pegs 99.9% of the time. The strange look of todays trials bikes also make them look so much differnt from a normal motorcycle, there is little point of reference between them and any other type of machine. What ordinary motorcyclist could picture themselves riding something like that? The concept of the FIM requiring a trials bike with a real seat again and a gallon and a half of fuel is not a radical one. It would also have very little effect on machine performance. Filling in the sway back of the modern trials bike with a gas tank and minimal seat would not take cause a poor handling trials bike! It might even lower scores for most riders because now the rear fender hump causes fives insted of threes during pushing. A flat profile trials bike actually is easier to push through a section for a three than a sway-back bike. Simply, it opens up the oppertunities available for us already in the sport. Instead of carrying gas on our backs, or in a front fork mounted extra tank that changes the balance of the machine. We all would be back on bikes that can go on adventures, look like the rest of the bikes out there and offer a little comfort. Has anyone tried to sit on a modern trials bike for very long? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikespace Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 Help, I'm almost in agreement with Lane, or at least considering the fact that there would be a considerable market for them..maybe.... This hasn't happened to me before. Do I need to see a doctor? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sendero Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 When I start readin' about bringin' back 450 pound Bultacos, I just gotta let one fly here... Who was it... Brendan I believe, that said Trials is just a bunch of old fuddy duddies or something to that effect? Judging by the Beaves' last few posts, one might begin see it that way, but keep in mind the Beave is not your typical Trials rider of today. He is special... very special. Nobody but the Beave wants to see FAT gas tanks and puffy seats on a Trials bike. Allow me to speak up in defence of the rest of the Trials world... We want the trickest, best performing, lightest, most reliable Trials bikes the factories and their riders and engineers can build, for the cheapest retail price possible, built for the specific purpose of riding Trials in local and national competition... and that IS what we get. We apreciate the fine work they have done over the last few decades, and we look forward to the advancements that will come in the near future. We consider ourselves lucky to be able to purchase such fine machines, built for such a small obscure sport (here in the USA) for the affordable price that we pay, which is less than a modern MXer. If we want a T-r-a-i-l bike, we will go down to the local Honda dealer and plop down 7k for a bike that was built for that purpose, which is what most of us happily do. Beave, snap out of it. Did you really have to walk/ride a Bultaco uphill both ways to get to school when you were a kid? If so, that might explain it. Sendero Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brendan Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 (edited) Who was it... Brendan I believe, that said Trials is just a bunch of old fuddy duddies or something to that effect? Judging by the Beaves' last few posts, one might begin see it that way, but keep in mind the Beave is not your typical Trials rider of today. He is special... very special. Nobody but the Beave wants to see FAT gas tanks and puffy seats on a Trials bike. Allow me to speak up in defence of the rest of the Trials world... We want the trickest, best performing, lightest, most reliable Trials bikes the factories and their riders and engineers can build, for the cheapest retail price possible, built for the specific purpose of riding Trials in local and national competition... and that IS what we get. We apreciate the fine work they have done over the last few decades, and we look forward to the advancements that will come in the near future. We consider ourselves lucky to be able to purchase such fine machines, built for such a small obscure sport (here in the USA) for the affordable price that we pay, which is less than a modern MXer. If we want a T-r-a-i-l bike, we will go down to the local Honda dealer and plop down 7k for a bike that was built for that purpose, which is what most of us happily do. Beave, snap out of it. Did you really have to walk/ride a Bultaco uphill both ways to get to school when you were a kid? If so, that might explain it. Sendero <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I was only paraphrasing what I read in some of the other posts in "Across the Pond," which someone(s) reflected on the current trial membership. I have only literally met a couple of trials people, and they are not "fuddy duddies." I certainly hope that did not rub anyone the wrong way. The reason why I make mention of the tank/seat issue, is because as an outsider/non-trials person, I have a valid and different observation on the situation of "An Example of the Problem with Trials in the US." As I already mentioned, if one wants a sport to grow, it has to come from the outside, and not exclusively from restructuring the way competive organizations and events are run. If one is satisfied with the status quo, then I don't see much of a foundation for discussion on the issue. I cannot see why making a larger tank/seat combo removable or interchangeable, would change a bike for the worst, as some here seem to believe. Edited January 23, 2006 by Brendan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mich lin Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 We are not talking about bringing back the 200lb Bultaco but a sub 150 pound trials bike with a tank and seat. One that looks and appeals to the average motorcyclist and is more fun to ride. Great point about the growth has to come from the outside. Current trials bikes are more expensive right now because they are very limited production! Sell some more bikes and the retail cost may just go down. Only by making trials bikes more practical will they appeal to a wider base of customers. The performance of the production bikes just might be better with flatter lines like I mentioned before. Most riders would have fewer fives and more threes with a flater profile bike. They would still be thin, have low seats but carry a little more fuel and allow you to sit a while. Plus trials bikes would no longer look like broken down sway back horses. They would weigh no more, unless the gas tanks are full of gas and it would open up the design options a lot for the engineers. They would for sure handle better on longer rides because the mass would be centralized with a full tank under the seat. Nothing messes up a bikes balance than having the extra fuel up near the triple clamps. Having fuel in your backpack is simply dangerous! In fact, trials bikes with larger gas tanks under the seats would outperform todays designs because the center of gravity would be lower. Now the engineers are afraid to raise that area of the machines because of fear of changing the status quo lines of todays competition trials bikes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dman Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 I agree with sendero. Sure we want to appeal to the larger public spectacle, but sendero nails it on the head when he says... We want the trickest, best performing, lightest, most reliable Trials bikes the factories and their riders and engineers can build, for the cheapest retail price possible, built for the specific purpose of riding Trials in local and national competition... and that IS what we get. I think that represents a lot of riders. And I really don't think that changing all of the american trials bikes around (I assume you're doing this only in the USA because the bikes themselves do not appeal to the average american rider, meanwhile europe seems to have no problems with ridership)and alienating those already in the sport by adding to the "getting your new bike ready" list a few things like take seat off, change gas tank, etc.... If I want a trail bike, I'm gonna buy an enduro from honda or something. Not go to my local trials dealer and ask for a seat and tank. Lane, how does having a flat line on top give you a better chance at a three? I thought that being able to sit low would allow you to get the most out of your legs while pushing, allow you to stretch better, and be able to not only put weight on the rear wheel, but also get the bike up onto the rear wheel to get even better traction. Not to mention, how would we do the deep knee bend before a zap? Those seats would turn into quite the ballbusters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mich lin Posted January 24, 2006 Report Share Posted January 24, 2006 Simply study the dynamics of pushing, I've spent a great deal of time on this technique over the years. When the rear fender hits their behind they are actually creating "isometric gridlock." By that I mean the harder they push the less effort goes into moving the bike foreward because their behind is holding the bike back at the same time. The harder they push makes no differnce in their foreward momentum. The bigger the swayback on the bike the more this dynamic goes into play! A flatter profile bike does not create this isometric gridlock as bad. Thus making it harder to get a three on a sway back bike. Also if you watch US riders, they don't stand correctly, they stand much lower than the Europeans and Japanese riders. Don't believe me, check it out at the US world round! This is one of the biggest problems an American coach has to overcome with US riders who don't ride mud as much as the Europeans, Americans don't know how to push for a three as well as the Europeans. Or do they have as good a stance! This is not common knowledge in America and I would not expect most of our riders to understand these problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the artist formerly known as ish Posted January 24, 2006 Report Share Posted January 24, 2006 Not a bad debate, both views have valid points, seat and 1 liter larger fuel capacity could be achieved by razing the profile mid section of the bike by only a couple of inches. Try riding a stock trialer 500 plus mile in one week, the seat and the knowledge that your not going to run out of fuel before the next gas check is bloody nice. Now I can see why Sendero wants a little id Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mich lin Posted January 24, 2006 Report Share Posted January 24, 2006 Ishy, how can I argue that that? Come on, you will have to try harder to stir up a little heated debate. We simply have to stop this agreeing thing! Beave 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.