Pre 65 Future & Pre 65 Rules

[b40rt]

41 minutes ago, metisse said:

My view on all classic trials is have an age related handicap.   In years old... up to 50 x 1.5, 50-60 years old 0, and over 60 - 1.5 .

so on a final score of 10 marks lost over the trial 

up to 40 would have their score increased  to 15

50 to 60 remains at 10

over 60 comes down to 6,5.

It wouldn t take long to get the hang of it.... thoughts....

I've mentioned handicaps on a few occasions, always met with a deafening silence !

[metisse]

2 hours ago, b40rt said:

I've mentioned handicaps on a few occasions, always met with a deafening silence !

Me too, If the younger riders are in fact only there to enjoy the ride and sample classic trials, it should n t pose a problem. Some of the older entry may stand a chance of renewed glory....

 

[brian0304]

Do we really need to indulge TT Spud and his labour intensive fantasy plans every few years ? If he spent less time at his keyboard trying to turn back the clock, and more time riding the ex works bike he inherited, the world would be a happier place 

[brian0304]

I see that the Petrol tank MUST be original ?! I’m guessing that the bike you were given has an original  tank then Spud ? 
that’ll be the majority of your imaginary potential Original class excluded as I imagine a lot have alloy replacements ?

just realised that one of your very few concessions to modernity are alloy rims . Has your bike got alloys by any slim chance..?

ridiculous 

Edited November 15, 2021 by brian0304

[greevesrob]

Would this be original enough? Don't think the handicapping of younger rides would work though to think it would kill of interest for people my age. I think I made it harder for myself actually riding an original framing greeves

[b40rt]

"Would this be original enough? Don't think the handicapping of younger rides would work though to think it would kill of interest for people my age. I think I made it harder for myself actually riding an original framing greeves"

Would handicapping really deter anybody ? If I only entered events I thought I could win, they would be very few and far between.

Personally, I wouldn't handicap by age (as it has no relationship to ability) more by results.  Maybe previous years first second and third  are handicapped 3 for winning, 2 for second and 1 for third. 

Edited November 19, 2021 by b40rt

[ttspud]

@b40rt @greeves @metisse 

Certainly an interesting idea, an age handicap. 

"Don't think the handicapping of younger rides would work though to think it would kill of interest for people my age"

That is a risk, so perhaps handle it a different way, to not handicap younger riders but give older riders an incentive to ride, not that they probably need it.

I would perhaps prefer to think of it as a 'reward' rather than a handicap. In other words, rather than multiplying marks up for anybody, maybe just remove marks for the older riders.  I do understand the point that the multiplier would therefore not affect riders on 0, and that would mean that for events such as the Talmag whereby lots of riders end up on 0, it would make no difference.

Maybe a better idea would simply be to take marks off (allowing for an overall negative score also), for example, riders over 50 would get 1 mark removed from their score, riders over 60 would get 5 marks removed from their score.  Riders over 70 would get 10 marks off their score.  Something like that.

"Would handicapping really deter anyone"

I doubt that it would handled as a reward.  Generally, older riders will ride a different course to the 'young guns' anyway.  So, a reward for older riders shouldn't put them off.

Edited November 22, 2021 by ttspud

[ttspud]

An 'age reward' has been added to the Rules, a good idea I think all round.

Edited November 22, 2021 by ttspud

[ttspud]

@trialsrfun

Next year, have hardly made it out of the garden this year!

[ttspud]

On the 'petrol tank' point, yes, this is a tricky one.  Some bikes had alloy petrol tanks as standard whereas some did not. 

I see no issue in allowing alloy tanks for original bikes which only ever had a steel tank but only in exactly the same design, which would stop bikes having the tiny petrol tanks which immediately would affect the look and spirit of the Original sub-class.  No-one else has brought this up, but I think it is a good point.

On the rims, no, that is a practical point, the 18" rims are so that it is easy to get the tyres, nothing more than that.  Obviously riders can still use the old 19" rims and get reasonable tyres for them (perhaps I am not sure).  In earlier discussions about this, there was a Prestige sub-class which was even more original but the difference between an Original and a Prestige was so small that it made very little sense to add that level of complexity to the rules.  So, on balance, and that is all that can be done with this, allowing 18" rims is not something I think should be changed.

Edited November 22, 2021 by ttspud

[ttspud]

Allowance for alloy petrol tank for Original bikes, to the same design/dimensions as the original part, added to the rules.

Edited November 22, 2021 by ttspud

[brian0304]

Out of interest, do you still believe in Father Christmas 🎅 ?

[ttspud]

12 hours ago, brian0304 said:

Out of interest, do you still believe in Father Christmas 🎅 ?

 

You are trying to be abusive, I understand why, which makes it no less abusive. You have probably built up a new 'Ariel HT5' with some trick frame, trick engine, trick forks, trick tank, trick electronics, trick clutch, trick brakes, trick hubs and so on, and are vehemently opposed to any threat to the current advantage that you feel you have created for yourself.  You feel that that gives you the right to be abusive, but it doesn't.  And the saddest part is that you really feel like being abusive is going to get you somewhere, but it won't.  I am indulging you for this reply because you will probably just continue to try to involve others, carry on being abusive and so on anyway, but this way you will understand that it has not gone unnoticed.  I do feel sorry for you, you must have other problems to feel that abuse is necessary.  Over the years, many people have done exactly what you have just done, from exactly the same position (riding a very modified machine and are utterly opposed to any change to allow original bikes to compete), and I have always attempted to be similarly generous in my response in avoiding being abusive back.  If you have some input on the rules, that is great, but, as I said at the beginning, do try to keep the abuse to a minimum.  Anyway, I will leave it there.

[brian0304]

I find it abusive that you deem all the riders that ride week in/week out, set trials on etc, are deemed cheats and trophy hunters . The vast majority just enjoy messing with their bikes and maybe modifying them so that they can cope with regular riding without self destructing , and having a constant search for original parts.

You say you barely ride one trial a year but the rules need re-writing as it seems you are the one obsessed with competition! The horse long bolted pre65 , but a lot of people still enjoy it as it is, and you can’t turn back the clock. You come on here every year or two and witter in about riding in group A, subsection B, age category C, PreUnit class D, when most of pre65 is just 30-40 blokes in a field enjoying themselves . I have never won a trial, and never likely to, by the way. 
You are simply dreaming, and I’m amazed that you think we should all indulge you and your unworkable plans .

Anyway, I’ll leave it there, I’m riding at the weekend so need to jet wash my bike from last week . 
Or does jet-washing put me in a different sub-group and I should be hose-piping to keep it real ?

[ttspud]

1 hour ago, brian0304 said:

I find it abusive that you deem all the riders that ride week in/week out, set trials on etc, are deemed cheats and trophy hunters

If someone believes that all riders that ride at the weekend week in/week out, and all those that set out the trials, are cheats and trophy hunters, then attack that position and that argument by all means.  They are not being personally abusive.  However, do not get personally abusive by seeking to attack the person.  The fact that your accusation is not even my position, and never was, and that you are being personally abusive with off-discussion abuse as well and then trying to bring others in to support your bullying and abuse, none of that is appropriate.  I would also say that those accusing others of cheating where they are cheating is justified, it might hurt those accused, but it is true and fair discussion.  There are others that have been abusive as you have been, and they are staying mostly away if still seeking to support your abusive behaviour in more minor ways.  Anyway, as I say, enough of that, if you want to contribute to the discussion, try to do so without being personally abusive about anyone.