What Would It Take?

[alan bechard]

But the point is Mark, you are not limited to just those 5 classes.

Your club use those 5 classes as a base, and they leave the order of those classes consistent with regards to severity. Then you add in whatever you guys think your guys are, maybe one easier such as Novice B that TI does, or maybe one harder Such as Champ that STRA does.

The trick would be, that if you are 90% of the riders out there, you would fit into one of these classes, then you could go club to club and know that you are at the same relative position of difficulty.

[copemech]

Al, don't get me wrong as I totally agree.

Seems a 6 class system is most favored.

We do not seem to have such a problem here as throughout tht Central Regional states it is already consistant as far as I have seen. I do not know what they do in CO.

Ridgrunr makes good points about the NAMING as well. Beginner and Amature should not be used.

To maintain consistancy with the National level riders and NATC, you need to be a good intermediate rider(Sportsman) or expert to compete.

So that leaves:

Master or Champ

Expert

Sportsman

Advanced

Intermediate

Novice

Intermediate would still be the middle line, in the AM!

Simple HU?

Now call Dan and get it done and put my check in the mail!

[mich lin]

Alan is right, This is very important. Our new trials organization must proceed with this program As Soon as Possible otherwise it will not gain the respect of the national trials community.

The names or the difficulty really don't matter as long as the best ride the top line and the beginners ride the bottom line. Standardize the names and the numbers of classes and that's a winner.

If the newly organized national trials organization cannot succeed with the class program standardization. They are a total failure and not worth supporting.

I don't want to sound harsh but facts are facts. They have not showed us very much in their first year of operation.

[alan bechard]

Al, don't get me wrong as I totally agree.

Seems a 6 class system is most favored.

We do not seem to have such a problem here as throughout tht Central Regional states it is already consistant as far as I have seen. I do not know what they do in CO.

Ridgrunr makes good points about the NAMING as well. Beginner and Amature should not be used.

To maintain consistancy with the National level riders and NATC, you need to be a good intermediate rider(Sportsman) or expert to compete.

So that leaves:

Master or Champ

Expert

Sportsman

Advanced

Intermediate

Novice

Intermediate would still be the middle line, in the AM!

Simple HU?

Now call Dan and get it done and put my check in the mail!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually Mark, you just blew the order.

And the NATC say's that you must be an Advanced or Better rider to compete. Will go hunting for the citation. Which would make the below correct (As Ridge laid out)

Champ, Master, Pro (Whatever your club desires, if they desire)

Expert

Advanced

Intermediate

Sportsman

Novice

We have to be able to do it consistently here to sell it consistently to our respective clubs.

[copemech]

What about consistency with the NATC naming though?

[mich lin]

This is confusing, why can't the USMCTA simply tell us what classes we must run on a local level? Seems like a NO BRAINER.

[alan bechard]

Because the NATC calls it "Sportsman"? Is that what you are referring too?

I believe they changed the rules this past year. Current rules are here.

http://www.ama-cycle.org/rulebooks/supps/2006/NATC.pdf

It used to say you had to be an advanced or better rider, but it no longer say's that, to ride in a support class.

Had never really thought about that consistency (or I guess more accurately lack of consistency) between the NATC names and local club names.

I guess I always referred to the lower class at Nationals as "support" lines though, not sportsman.

Not sure what point would carry the most weight, past that we should be consistent, and as you pointed out, should probably be consistent with NATC documentation as well.

[mich lin]

Alan, your right on and dead right with this class standardization topic. Until we mandate class names we will be operating in total confusion.

If we can't get this right, we can get nothing right in American trials. First things first, lets straiten out the class disaster problem and then everything else will fall into place. If need be, we need to get very strict on the subject. If clubs don't conform, they need to be fined or their riders should be prevented from riding nationals until they conform.

[dbrown]

Big Al & all,

this is a good discussion you are having, let's try to focus the effort to actually do something. Now that the world round is over and I can think of something else, it's time to redo the AMA Amateur rules, section 4.U for trials. I've spoken with the AMA officials about the process, and we just need to develop a consensus document to propose to the AMA congress in the fall. This should include an update of the competition rules so that it is consistent with the national and FIM rules, and also can include a description of riding classes, how to set up an event, etc. Anyone can download the AMA rulebook from the website AMA rulesand send comments via the USMTA "contact us" link USMTA. We can use some more volunteers to help with redrafting this document. I hope to organize a revised draft of the thing in the next month or so and send it out to interested volunteers and maybe we can discuss it a the youth nationals among those who come. Or even post it on the web for discussion!

As far as competition classes, it looks to me as though there is consensus about the novice - intermediate - advanced - expert progression, then larger clubs fill in the gaps or add to each end with other classes as needed to keep everyone happy. It would be good to describe the basic skills needed to call yourself an "advanced" rider, since that is the level referenced to competing at the support class level in the nationals.

The most important thing is that everyone who comes to ride should be able to ride a class that is challenging without being scary or too difficult. This is our challenge for the leaders of local clubs, and maybe a key factor in growing the sport.

Send me an email via the USMTA link if you'd like a copy of the draft trials rules section when it's done. It may be dangerous to invite comments from anyone as there seem to be a few nutcases out there, but democracy is messy, I guess. I hope we can solicit input from some of the club leadership around the U.S. so that we can get some consensus on a few basic points. This should be only the most basic set of rules, so that an individual club can use the AMA rules and supplement these with their own local special considerations (like series points, work requirements, etc.).

The bulletin board debates are interesting and entertaining, keep it up! How about a list of basic skills required to ride a national support class (which could define "advanced")? I don't mean win a national support class, I just mean compete without totally struggling. I think most riders who are winning support classes are expert level in their clubs. Maybe this discussion should be a new topic.

Anyways, I'm off travelling for a couple weeks and may not be able to reply but will check in later when I get back. Al B, you can call me tonight (Sun) or Monday before about 5 if you want to discuss.

regards,

dan

[perce]

I wouldn't worry about, in the UK centres call folk what they like & Experts in some Centres wouldn't win on the easy route in the Yorkshire Centre. Just get on with it & have fun.

[ahamayfrank]

This is getting good. Lot

[ridgrunr]

Organizing and stardardizing the sport is important. It's the #1 thing we need to do to get the sport of Motorcycle Trials legitimacy. We need to think outside (or maybe get inside) the box depending on how you look at it.

#1. Forget the NATC. They do national competition only and have no interest in the club level.

#2. There are very few "Champ" riders. It's an exclusive term for top level riders. Let's not use the term on the club level.

#3. The term "Sportsman" causes a lot of confusion. Some clubs have it as a lower level class and some have it as an upper lever class. Plus, I believe it's a National level class term? Too confusing. So maybe we should not use it at all for the club level.

#3. Intermediate means Middle, so no matter how many classes there are, the Intermediate should be the "middle" class.

#4. From a Trials Marshal standpoint(the guys actually setting the meets, which I've done since 1990), the more classes you have, the harder the task gets. So KISS is the operative word here.

#4. We need terms that can relate to section difficulty.

How about this?

Master (top riders if a club has them. We have Cory Pincock for instance)

Expert

Advanced

Intermediate

Clubman

Novice

Junior (kids under 12?)

This fits in with the idea of needing to be at least an "upper" class rider to compete on the National (NATC) level and removes the confusing Sportsman term.

A club could still have sub classes such as "Senior Advanced", but these could be the 7 base classes.

Lets not try to eat the elephant whole. One piece at a time. Lets get the class terms decided, then we can work on the rules.

Edited May 29, 2006 by Ridgrunr

[alan bechard]

Dan, tried to call, think the #s I have are for TTC cell? Anyway left a message there. I think I called your old cell # because whoever answered had no idea who you where OK, so I feel dated. Give me a call you get a chance.

931-551-8129 or cell 931-801-7921

And yes brother Ringo, you can always call as well

Ridge, I like the Clubman idea, the only thing that I think may be a sticker with some clubs is they want Champ (I tried a year or two ago to get the STRA to go to PRO in line with NATC and it would not fly, Although not sure if Master would have had the same problems? the principal problem with Pro is it implies that there is Money being made.)

I think your comment on NATC is very relevant and accurate for this discussion, as well as maybe just avoiding the "Sportsman" term all together.

I think the "clubman" term readily identifies many of the riders in that class as well.

I would suggest that we present the 5 basic classes as Ridge has put forth

Expert

Advanced

Intermediate

Clubman

Novice

As the primary classes used for competition. Then as an addendum (or some such crud) make notes that the suggested names for other optional classes be

Master, youth, Womens,Sr., Vet etc. etc. But only mention these in that they are presented as options that a club can exercise if they have the desire and the support to operate these.

Dan brings up several excellent points.

I think we will have more input from the New USMTA as things settle out after this past WR. I know I should be doing more to get my piece of the USMTA puzzle put into place then I have, not sure how others have been doing. I also know that many of the principals have been deeply involved in making the WR the success that it was.

We are being handed an opportunity, complete with timeline, to present this (and other items) to the AMA.

I believe that we should take the approach with this that we have taken with many of the programs we have implemented where I work.

The basic motto I try and use and apply is.

If I make it easy for the customer (soldier, at work) to do the right thing, they will not do the wrong thing.

I think it is the same here, if we make it easy for local level clubs to follow this lead, make it as painless as possible to follow the rules and fall in line with the other clubs in the US, then they will. If we come up with a mass of convuluted rules, and edicts that say they will, or we will punish them, then most folks I know will just not worry about it and go ahead and do whatever they would like.

We also have to bear in mind that this will not occur quickly. As Ridge and others well know, Trials riders in particular are not quick to change. This has to be a task that is approached patiently making small changes and adjustments along the way. It is also greatly effected by various clubs schedules, for instance FTA is mid season I believe in Dec, where many other clubs are at the end of their seasons. I would imagine that there are some various timelines for different clubs around the country just based on climate. This of itself will lengthen out the process when you ask clubs to make a change like this. No one would want to change mid season.

Will start another topic on what is an Advanced rider.

Does anyone know how to view past years AMA rules on line? I am certain that, that used to be the standard, but believe it was eliminated in the rewrite. Not sure how to check myself though.

Added on edit.

I know this sounds stupid, but I had never thought of intermediate as the "middle" class. Even though I would agree that is exactly what the name implies.

Edited May 29, 2006 by Alan Bechard

[copemech]

Thanks for the encouragement Dan, I'm not sure why we need to re write the rulebook too but we'll take it one step at a time.

Lets see now,

Ridge, Can WE forget about the NATC? I wish it were so but I don't think so.

Will they change anything? Doubtful if a class name change would occur without MASSIVE demand and insistance by clubs nationwide.

Ridge, you have broken your own KISS rule with 7 classes just to keep INTERMEDIATE in the MIDDLE! If the term intermediate means nothing more than that, then I tend to like the CLUBMAN term better! Signifies a regular club member and participant in events!

The term SPORTSMAN as currently used by the NATC signifies a rider who is capable and willing to participate in events on a club, regional and national level, similar to a JOURNEYMAN designation in the trades.

Expert and Champ or Master classes seem a given for regional or national competitions, although that Champ/ Master thing needs to be figured out.

Therefore I shall propose:

Champ/ Master

Expert

Sportsman

Advanced

Clubman

Novice

I'm liking that better all the time!

Kids only/ Youth/ Rookie classes are sub classes, we actually run separate youth events called Cadet for bicycles and motorcycles, but that is a different deal.

Which also brings back another point, we are not asking anyone to change format here, just NAMES!

I need a beer now!

[wayne thais]

For whatever it is worth, the NATC at one time stated that you should be an Advanced rider to compete in the National series. From what I have seen, if you are going to be competitive (in the support class) you had better be a GOOD Expert rider. Otherwise, this is my opinion, you should stay home, save your money and practice.

BTW, I wholeheartedly endorse the idea of class standardization; it has been one of my pet peeves ever since I returned to Trials after a 30 year absence. I have mentioned before how I was involved in bicycle racing for several years and could race anywhere in the US at a USCF sanctioned event and know that the classes would be the same everywhere.

What we need to happen is to have all of the clubs become AMA clubs, then the AMA would have enough money to put some energy into Trials and set some specific rules etc. Bicycle racers have to purchase an annual license in order to race, the license clearly states your class, the same thing could be done for Trials.

Here is something that I have also struggled with, if we have the AMA and it is the motorcycle governing body why do we have the NATC, and now the new organization? For MX, Hare Scrambles etc. as far as I know, they do not have splinter groups to run National series. The Springfield mile was just held in Sprinfield IL today and I will bet that it was not run by the MATC, the AMA ran it. I think! What I think I am trying to say is that the AMA needs to get involved in trials, and all of the clubs need to support the AMA and all of the members need to join the AMA. If you are going to race MX, Hare Scrambles, Flat Track etc, you have to belong to the AMA, again that is how I understand it. Our club hosts 3 AMA events each year, 2 Hare Scrambles and 1 Trials, everyone who participates MUST be an AMA member.

Wayne