alan bechard Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 And the real trick is when it is the backside of someone else's markers, that you do not realize are even there. If you look at the WR markers, they have a dot or circle of color on the back side, and they are on those little metal wickets so that they are visible from both sides. So far at our rounds, we still are using tree's etc to staple the markers too. Nothing like riding through a gate backwards, that you did not realize. (This is probably wandering too much from the base topic) That gate section type marking seems to be where things are going, us Trialmasters will need to adapt and insure that we do not mark things that contribute to this problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbrown Posted July 22, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2006 It is worth noting the purpose of a specific rule. As I see it, the rule about a missed section penalty requires that you actually ride your bike around the loop and go to each section to get your 5 punched. If there wasn't a more severe penalty for missed sections, you could have a bike problem or injury that should force you to dnf but instead you just would get 5's for missed sections and be recorded as finishing. The intent of the rule is to force you to actually ride the course if you are in fact competing. NATC is a 10 point penalty for a missed section, in FIM it is 20, in the Scottish it is 50 (this trial obviously has greater emphasis on riding the course and finishing). Regarding the rule about riding sections in numerical order, it is the rider's responsibility to ride the course in the correct way and go to each section in order and to pay attention that you have arrived at the next section and haven't missed one. I realize that some clubs may relax this rule, especially if they are small and ride with group scoring, and that is up to them. But if you have a trial that has many riders then safety dictates that you need to have everyone riding the loop in the same direction else chaos! Better that the rule is in here and a club can say it doesn't apply than to not have the rule in the event it is desirable. Regarding the gates on trees where you can't see the back side, this is a problem of learning how to mark a section in the best way. Often the problem can be avoided by the layout person by just marking so that "you must go here" so as to avoid the need to be aware that "you must not go here". But I think the best designed sections are those that don't require a blizzard of markers like that. Better to just send the lower classes off to ride some ground to one side and the upper classes off to ride some ground nearby with a minimum of intermingling. But good section layout is always going to be a bit of an art. If you do it you will always make mistakes, just try to be open minded and ask people who are riding and try to learn from your mistakes. dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copemech Posted July 24, 2006 Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 I just realized that all us professional SR Amatures(old retired experts and all) are all "D's"! That reminds me of my HS english score! "D" for dummie!(or something else worse) I admit that I may not be quite as adventurous as Dan or Sam, but I would probably ride your intermediate line in TN. I prefer the 1-6 class designations! At least I'm not a "B" or "C"! The "A's" may deserve the associated connotations! Wake Up Dan! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malibudon Posted August 2, 2006 Report Share Posted August 2, 2006 (edited) "There can be some discussion there as to what 'passing through a gate' means, but it was described at our meeting to treat these gates as though they are like a yellow ribbon inside the section, dividing where the riders are to go." I would describe "passing through a gate" the same way as at a section entrance or exit--if the front axle brakes the plane, you've passed through the gate. Edited August 3, 2006 by MalibuDon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan bechard Posted August 2, 2006 Report Share Posted August 2, 2006 Well, one of the specific incidents that came up, Me riding, Dan Brown standing there with Ron Milam and Brian Robison as the observer. Go down into my turn and pull a nose wheelie and land with my rear wheel in (past) the "gate" of another class. (I did not realize that there was a gate there) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian r Posted August 2, 2006 Report Share Posted August 2, 2006 otter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan bechard Posted August 2, 2006 Report Share Posted August 2, 2006 Yep.... With freinds like you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copemech Posted August 3, 2006 Report Share Posted August 3, 2006 I guess that little move cost you, show off! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan bechard Posted August 4, 2006 Report Share Posted August 4, 2006 This thread here shows the problem. http://www.trialscentral.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9829 The "line" they are looking at is between the two gate markers of another class. Seems like I am not the only one that misses these things. But how does that go Mark, if I am in Laia's company it is all good! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leooshea Posted August 4, 2006 Report Share Posted August 4, 2006 I have reviewed the proposed rules and think that New England can support these updates to the AMA rules. There will be some local rules that the NETA will continue to use and I don't think that we will change our class names to match. I do think that I might be able to get the membership to accept the letter designations. The level of difficult descriptions are good and should help riders determine the appropriate class. I may be reading it wrong but in section 4.d a rider cannot ride above a marker. If this implies an imaginary vertical line up from a marker it would be very difficult for a checker to judge. I see no fault with a rider doing a float turn where his wheel may pass beyond a marker in the air. The last I looked nationals had a rule against jumping tape, that is easy to check This is very good work and if adopted at the Competition Congress will be a good move toward unified rules across the country. Leo O'Shea New England Trials Association Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbrown Posted August 5, 2006 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2006 Thanks Leo, your feedback is important, and I will attach this endorsement to the proposal as I have to finish this up & get it in asap. I have made a few editorial changes as the folks identified errors or typos but am planning to mail this in on Monday. LAST CALL!!! By the way, regarding the item in 4.d. about riding above a marker: that language is taken directly from the FIM rulebook but I understand the interpretation of "riding" to mean that the rider cannot jump over a marker. I don't interpret this to preclude a floater in which the wheel passes an imaginary line above the marker, that would be almost impossible to observe and enforce. As regards the class names, I think we have made it so that individual clubs can make their names whatever they want, but we wish to encourage that these classes are cross-referenced to a common standard. thanks, dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copemech Posted August 7, 2006 Report Share Posted August 7, 2006 So if I were able to imagine this "imaginary line" thing, would it apply to both axles, as in the "floater" or "crossing your tracks" rules, or shall we now do something totally different again in the case of the "gates" such as was apparently applied to many at Hawkstone by fiving riders for protruding anything including your a*** between another set of markers based upon this line that does not exhist! Dan, in reference to the class designations, I would also like my recent post included as feedback for your proposal, in all fairness. Not that all would neccessarily understand the associated connotations with the "ABC" system, but it 's worth a shot! Gee, is an elaboration as good as an endorsement? Maybe I don't qualify? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbrown Posted August 7, 2006 Author Report Share Posted August 7, 2006 Mark, the proposal doesn't require that any club actually use these designations for their class names, as that proposition would probably get nowhere at the moment. It is not realistic to expect every club in the U.S. to change their names to suit somebody else's idea of what the names ought to be. The proposal is intended to provide a common reference system. So if you guys have a class you call "amateur" or "senior expert" or whatever, you can reference the skill level for that class to a recognized national standard. So we won't call you D for dummy. dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan bechard Posted August 7, 2006 Report Share Posted August 7, 2006 All in all Dan I think it looks great. I think class letters / numbers whatever as you said, looks like the best compromise. It should help to have something current to point clubs too and say, Here is the pattern, modify for your particular scenario, but here is a base to work from. Definetely a big step in the right direction. 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.