An Example Of The Problem With Trials In The Us

[brendan]

The Honda enduro bike and it's ilk, are not true trail bikes. Those machines are race bikes built for speed. They are fire road burners, and often times they become instruments of vandelism. The singletrack that these bikes run in enduros, are not techinical, but are more of groomed trails that one can often times run 20-30 mph on. When the terrain truly does become technical, those bikes have to be forced through, and more times than not, cause immense amounts of trail damage. The sad part is that nobody cares when that happens. It is all about twisting the right hand. Riding enduro bikes through that type of terrain verses a trials type bike, is like using a butcher's knife to do surgery. I have found that a trials bike has the best foundation currently available for a great trail bike. It just needs a bigger tank, and a seat for some people.

As far as the bike popularity comparison between us and the Euros, I don't see that as a valid analogy. We have far more land (at the moment) to ride on, than they do. Do they have vast national forests and blm type areas to ride on? I can see why the current incarnation of trials bikes are popular over there, because that is the best machine available, to make the best of a limited situation. Over here, it makes perfect sense to have a machine with a little more versatility. It is different here in the states. We have more riding options available to us.

I don't see what the fear is all about, regarding the current bike form changing. As Mich said, the broader the appeal, the more bikes sold. And what do companies do with all of that money made? Do they deseveredly put that money back into R&D for their largest customer base, who all at best happen to be weekend amatuers? Of course not. These companies will predictably funnel the money into their race programs, which will trickle down, and mostly benefit the minority hardcore riders. The same dubious thing happens in enduro racing. The lowly C class has by far the most entry fees gleaned, but most of the money and focus is given to the handful of elite riders. It is nothing more than another form of aristocracy, a bourgeois plantation enterprise.

Edited January 24, 2006 by Brendan

[alan bechard]

Brendan, I think you will find that that bike that you describe has been done in several formats by various manufacturers with varying degree's of success, but I feel safe to say, it never truly "caught" on like wildfire.

As Lane pointed out, the Alpina was the first, and it was never as big of seller as the Sherpa or the Frontera or Pursang.

Then there was the Reflex (think of it what you will)

Then there was / is the Pampera, which in it's earlier generations was based on the trials bike, with more seat etc as discussed (and I must add, as I had a 370 that the suspension was a severly limiting factor) somewhere along the way there, at least in my opinion, one of the GG people set me straight, it went from a Trials base, with some enduro features, to an enduro base, with some trials features.

Beta made / makes? the Alp

Suzuki had the Sherpa.

I think that format has been tried multiple times, but each time in my opinion, it came up short in the marketplace.

Even the extended range kits which have been sold for Sherco's, Montesa's and Scorpa's, in my opinion have not exactly flown off the manufacturers shelves.

What we did with my dad's bikes, as his knees deteriorated (to the point he can no longer start bikes) and the modern bikes continued to drop in the middle, was to fashion him rear fenders out of steel, and on the montesa we added a support strut down to the footpeg. We then fabricated seat's that bridged the gap and allowed him to more comfortably sit on the rise of the fender.

I think there are several folks out there that have taken this approach of modifying existing machinery to match the needs that you identify, but as for commercial success, I believe these machines get relegated to the back corners of bike shops.

[mich lin]

Alan, the point is not to reinvent the wheel but to cause a revolution! We are talking about bikes that will perform better than exsisting bikes in all areas and be more comfortable, have farther range and a wider appeal.

The trouble with all the add on kits is that they are expensive after thoughts, not a design direction change or formula change for the sport. I don't remember the sales figures for the Alpena off the top of my head but sales were good. We are not talking about a modern day Alpena or a better Pampara which is a pig. We are talking about the next generation of world championship trials machines with larger tanks under the seats with a lower CG than now. Longer range, more traditional lines, more comfort and a wider appeal.

The Alp or the Reflex were never good trials bikes! We are suggesting a new formula for what Raga, Fugi, Lampkin and company will compete the future world championship rounds on.

[atomant]

The Alp or the Reflex were never good trials bikes! We are suggesting a new formula for what Raga, Fugi, Lampkin and company will compete the future world championship rounds on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How many countries besides the US have a need for the type of machine you have laid out.? I couldnt ever see modern WTC trials being in the position of riding one of these bikes. The ongoing obsession is to lose weight from the bike not add it dont you think?

On another note, if you seriously believe there is a hole in the market for a machine of this type, start a business and make some!

[mich lin]

Adam, think outside the box a little! The bikes would not be a reflesx or an alp! They would be next years world beating trials machine, much more refined and better than the trials bike your on now.

They would simply have more range, a small but effective seat and a higher standard of performance because of the lower center of gravity and centralized mass. Why do some of you keep going back and think we are talking about a reflex or an alp?

Also remember that the FIM plans a minimum weight rule of I think 160lbs at the same time they impose the 4-stroke only rule on you. So your bikes are going to get heavy but not because of a useable tank and seat rule!

A bike with simply a larger tank and a minimal seat would not have to weigh more. Only with a full tank would the bike be heaver. When it's not filled to capacity air does not weigh very much.

We are simply talking about utilizing the unused void of the sway back of the modern trials bike. Simply raising that unused area a couple of inches by putting some much needed fuel and a little neopreame on there, then the airbox up near the steering head for better access and waterproffing. A longer intake track might even improve engine performance but only dyno and section testing will prove that theory.

Bingo, what you have is a better performing machine with a lower CG. More range and comfort and a wider sales appeal. Now if you insist on only a pint of gas and no seat, the manufacturers could build a speical indoor model for you.

Hey you may save a quarter of a pound and have exactly what you have right now, except you will take off what is now the tank cover to clean your air filter insted of the rear fender.

Everyone wins then, You guys and those of us who want sit once in a while.

[alan bechard]

Sounds an awful lot like a JCM too me..... I thought they went out of business?

When you get it built Lane, I would love to ride it.

[rick1]

The bikes are and will still be to damn expensive and even more now that your adding a seat and a bigger tank.

[neonsurge]

A bike with simply a larger tank and a minimal seat would not have to weigh more. Only with a full tank would the bike be heaver. When it's not filled to capacity air does not weigh very much.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Assuming the same materials are used, larger tank = more tank material = more weight. Seat > no seat (= more weight). So your hypothetical bike would HAVE to weigh more than a standard bike. Ye cannae change the laws of physics cap'n!

a = b + (x - y) + z

[the artist formerly known as ish]

Front and rear fenders on bikes today are no more than a cosmetic, the front won't keep mud out of your radiator unless you fit a mud flap, and the rear won't keep it off your back, the airbox, carb, shock mount and any other item they can cram in that space is done by necessity, a little more room would make them more user friendly.

It wouldn't fly if one company wanted to make a more functional machine, because looks are more important to most, if the FIM ruled that the bikes had to have a minimum seat height and fuel capacity, this would put the world champ riders on those machine and what is good for the goose.

Same debate a year or two back about going fourstoke, most could only see the negative, but the bikes in the first year are proving they are up to the task.

I think the point here is! if you could have a bike with a seat and better fuel capacity, that performed on a parr with todays bikes, how many would take that option.

[alan bechard]

I think the point here is! if you could have a bike with a seat and better fuel capacity, that performed on a parr with todays bikes, how many would take that option.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Would that be the Scorpa long ride or the add on kits that are / have been available for the Sherco and the Montesa?

My belief is that a lot of folks will make noise about this, but when it comes right too it, most, if any will not spend the money and actually buy the product.

[brian r]

I don't like the idea of mandating techinal things.

Didn't like it in F1 either!

The bike should just be the best they can be for the purpose

they are made for.

Want a seat, big tank ect? Buy a vintage bike or a kit.

However, as far as weight, you could add at least 10 pounds

to a bike and equal it out by putting helium in your tires.

Front is about 6 pounds of air and rear is 4 or so.

That equals 10 pounds! That's why I never fill my air tank

all the way up, it just weighs too much if I do.

[atomant]

Front and rear fenders on bikes today are no more than a cosmetic

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wouldnt like to ride a bike without the rear fender! Dont fancy sliding off the back and having me nuts drawn into the gap between the airbox and the backwheel at some speed by the backwheel

Mich Lin, Im interested to know how you propose lowering the CoG when you are adding weight to the upper section of the bike

[atomant]

However, as far as weight, you could add at least 10 pounds

to a bike and equal it out by putting helium in your tires.

Front is about 6 pounds of air and rear is 4 or so.

That equals 10 pounds! That's why I never fill my air tank

all the way up, it just weighs too much if I do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you being serious with this comment?

[mich lin]

Adam, the theory of centralized mass is well accepted for motorcycle design. On todays primitive bikes the fuel is mostly up high and fuel weight is heavy, 6 pounds per gallon. Moving it down into the unused hump of todays bikes lowers the center of gravity and centralizes the mass.

We also open up a great deal of room in the old gas tank area for the coil and electric parts that are not exactly light now hung near the triple clamps. They could also be lower, less cramped and more centralized. Perhaps even cooler!

Another problem with todays design is the position of the air intake. It's low and is subject to hot air induction because of the exsast being right next to the airbox inlet. More room, simply allows more design options, plus a gas tank with fuel weighs more than an airbox. So swapping positions of the two is a big plus not a negative.

You guys can keep riding your same bikes if you like! I think that's great because my new 21st century bike will have a "cold and dry air" inlet and will simply run away from your bike on climbs and up steps. It will have a more centralized mass and a lower CG.

Plus I will be more rested between sections and in the back of my mind I will not have to worry that I might run out of fuel. Then when the time limit is short, I have the option of carrying more fuel, which means less fuel stops saving time. Simply, I win with this new design over your 20th centery sway back broken down horse lookalike trials bike.

I agree with what has been said above, it's the look that everyone has become used to and the manufacturers are afraid to change that styling of their bikes. They are worried the old fuddy duddies won't like the "new look".

I also agree with the thought that mandates are not what trials is all about. Sadly we will have to get used to them! The FIM will require all bikes to be 4 strokes soon and have a weight minimum which is much higher than todays production bikes.

Get Used to it!

[atomant]

Moving the petrol tank to the 'seat' area moving the mass towards the backwheel should have a positive effect especially on grip.

Interesting idea. Do you have any design concepts drawn up?

and who is Adam?