[Paioli]

riding most of the national classic events this year i have noticed riders stopping, ajusting there balance,
bouncing frount/back wheels feet still planted on footrests, and been given a clean, i know this sort of
riding/observing is still acceptable in modern trials but it has no place in classic trials ie once a rider
ceases forward motion a five mark penalty is given, may be the time has come for the ACU/clubs to
issue observers with final instructions relating to the classic trial they are observing ie THIS EVENT IS
A NO STOP TRIAL ! and for the ACU/clubs to print on there regs THIS EVENT IS A NO STOP TRIAL!
i still rember when this modern way of riding came in during the early 80s, sections made harder and
tighter to accommodate, surely the majority of classic regulars do not want this, and i for one don't ,
and would rather see it sorted out by the powers that be, than have a confrontation at a section .

i would like to make it clear i am not observer bashing and i do not argue any bad decisions given
against me in sections, it's just clubs/observers/riders need to be singing from the same hym sheet
in classic trials !

[pitley]

100% Agee with you paioli.
Lots of stop starting going on at rhayader yesterday and the observers turned a blind eye to it!!
Me and woody wached about half a dozen in th second group at Cefnllyn.
Problem being younger riders on old bikes using modern methods to ride a section.
Every one knows how hard it is to get observers but they need to under stand the rules of classic and modern marking.
And the riders need to know that a stop is a 5 in classic trials!

This post has been edited by pitley: 12 November 2006 - 10:55 AM

[Andy M]

Not on a national level, but I observed my first ACU trial a couple of weeks ago (observed AMCA only before) and I was surprised at the difference in the stopping, hopping and re positioning etc. If I had not asked a couple of questions before the trial I would have given some good riders 5s all day long. I think I am up to speed on it now, but I would not want to mix them up. I think the confusion is the word "classic" as in the old way etc, as you say everybody is not singing from the same hymn sheet always, they see ACU and thats it.

[malcra]

agreed with all the sentiments about observing classic trails; from a personal point-of-view I can't stop-and-hop anyway so usually let the clutch and go....then hang on.

I've observed at couple of the ACU Welsh Trials Championship rounds and was was under the impression that TSR22 [1] was used and when I rider stopped that they should be marked with a 1, even if they'd not put a foot down, rather than going clean.

its an interesting subject and agreed the the supplementary regs for trials should state "non-stop" if applicable.

On a slightly different tack, at Rhayader yesterday, a couple of the guys in the group I was riding with we're penalised with 5's for not having forward motion in a section, but with one (or more) foot down in the bottom sub at Doliago and at Hillgate. Rightly so I guess as there has to be a differentiator between a good 3 (ie someone riding out the section on the pegs having a few strategic dabs) and someone who is really and who virtually picks the bike. I am happy with that and usually don't have a problem with getting a 5 that way.

[1] reading TSR22 this morning, there is a section "B" for non-stop trials, but no "A". Also, prey ignorance on my part, but the reglulations don't say that trial should be differentiated by the organiser; ie this is a non-stop trial.

[Woody]

The no-stop rule is nice and simple in its logic - if the bike stops forward motion with feet either on or off the pegs it is a 5. There is no grey area for interpertation. This is the rule that was used for decades as the object of the exercise was to pass thropugh the start card and exit the end card without stopping - if you stopped you failed.

Obviously there is a bit of leeway if it is a split second stop and that has always been accepted. What isn't acceptable is the issue that is the reason for this thread - deliberately stopping to either regain balance or to hop the bike into a different position and gain an avantage, usually to square a turn off where there is a danger of the front wheel washing out and costing a dab or two if the bike is ridden round the turn.

It isn't a case of riders being confused by the rules, it's a case of them deliberately doing it to get out of a mess and avoid losing the marks they would do if they had to continue forward motion. I'd agree that for next year's classic series there should be large notices at the signing on point and a similar statement in big block capitals on the entry forms that stopping will be penalised with a 5. If riders continue to get away with it, more amd more will do it to level the playing field and the series will be ruined. If riders want to skip about there are plenty of modern trials that cater for that.

[Nigel Dabster]

Woody, on Nov 12 2006, 02:30 PM, said:

The no-stop rule is nice and simple in its logic - if the bike stops forward motion with feet either on or off the pegs it is a 5. There is no grey area for interpertation. This is the rule that was used for decades as the object of the exercise was to pass thropugh the start card and exit the end card without stopping - if you stopped you failed.

Obviously there is a bit of leeway if it is a split second stop and that has always been accepted. What isn't acceptable is the issue that is the reason for this thread - deliberately stopping to either regain balance or to hop the bike into a different position and gain an avantage, usually to square a turn off where there is a danger of the front wheel washing out and costing a dab or two if the bike is ridden round the turn.

It isn't a case of riders being confused by the rules, it's a case of them deliberately doing it to get out of a mess and avoid losing the marks they would do if they had to continue forward motion. I'd agree that for next year's classic series there should be large notices at the signing on point and a similar statement in big block capitals on the entry forms that stopping will be penalised with a 5. If riders continue to get away with it, more amd more will do it to level the playing field and the series will be ruined. If riders want to skip about there are plenty of modern trials that cater for that.

I did get fed up with this a couple of years back, bootle was a bad offender, in the end I stopped trying to ride no stop and pretty much never can remember having a five because of it, needs changing.

As an aside, why 12 rounds again in 2007 3 morethan any other championship?

[John Collins]

The Classic Championship - with yes 12 rounds has caused a few comments for sure.

There are quite a few factors to take into account however.

Firstly there are 4 events which can be regarded as " double headers" if you like ie Saturday and Sunday - although different clubs - are in same area etc.

This will hopefully will make a good weekends riding for many. Worth a try we think - rather like the Lynn and the Treborrough used to be?

Secondly - quite a few of the Classic rounds are combined with Sidecar. With the number of participants in the Sidecar series not always high - it often needs this combination with something else to make the s/car round viable - not an ideal situation I know - but reality in any case.

It therefore follows that if you do not wish to deprive clubs who do not run sidecars the chance of running a Classic round and if you also wish to take advantage of those Clubs who run Classic & Sidecar - you inevitably start to get a lot of rounds.

It must also be stated that it will be possible therefore to drop two rounds of this Championship ( unlike just one round of most others) - this in effect will allow someone a little more choice.

I think more and more we are seing that it is not the tag " Championship" that is necessarily determaning participation. It does appear that in many Championships - there are not a huge number of riders contesting the whole series - and while possibly one could say too many rounds can cause this - the facts do not always bear this out - and it seems that riders are choosing the events they enjoy - or can afford to travel to - and while some may do the whole series - many will not - and including these good events into the series may give us a good variation of events that suit many. We have also changed the options organisers have to offer alternative routes for O/40 modern machines


The whole Classic Championship is certainly changing/evolving - and certainly for 2008 it will probably need a thorough review. It was one of the agenda items of the cancelled Trials Forum - and certainly will be in 2007.

For 07 we will see what happens with the whole thing - and try to keep an open mind of where it will go in te future - which is perhaps a good discussion topic for a separate post.

[Paioli]

john have you any thoughts on the observing issue , do you think we are correct in saying there seams
to be a problem with the modern riding style creeping into the classic trials, and can the acu and clubs
do any thing about it ,ie make it a no stop series.

[Old trials fanatic]

"john have you any thoughts on the observing issue , do you think we are correct in saying there seams
to be a problem with the modern riding style creeping into the classic trials, and can the acu and clubs
do any thing about it ,ie make it a no stop series."

Agree Paoli.

Classic events must have the NO STOP rule enforced. The ACU being the governing body must enforce it and observers must apply it. If you cease forward motion you get a five. If you want to play silly buggers then there are plenty of other trials to ride at.

Again not knocking observers but they must be made aware at signing on that NON STOP is the rule of the day. No if's or buts or "room for interpretation"

So come on John where do you and the ACU stand on this crucial issue, to Pre65 and twinshock trials anyway, which if not sorted immeadiately will surely spell the end of "Classic events".

[John Collins]

I actually believe that this topic about observing in the Classic Trials series is probably just part of debate on observing rules which probably needs to be started on such a forum. ie "Methods of Marking" I suspect it will be an extremely long debate. I also suspect at the end we will probably not have reached a conclusion - and certainly there will be many varying views - but interesting none the less.

Back to case in point - the Classic series is of course TSR 22B - No Stop permitted. So there is nothing to really change - and no new rules to be written.

What we are really talking about I suppose is how it is strictly enforced ? and here lies the real issue.

Personally it has never been a burning issue with me - and I have said before that I think over the years we have tied ourselves in too many knots over this or that marking system - and made far more out of it than necessary.

For me - probably the best article/description I have encountered on the issue is the one that Mike Rappley wrote in TMX a few weeks( months?) ago. Mike got a little mixed up with his description of curent FIM and UK rules etc - but apart from tghis I think he hit the nail on the head and very sensibly identified the problem.

Certainly in general - observers are not little hitlers out to spoil a riders fun - the exact opposite in fact - in in most cases tend to mark on the lenient side - possibly too much so - they are certainly not intend in handing out fives at the drop of the hat - and usually seem to give the rider the " benefit if you like.
Giving a dab or a two or three is usually far more preferable than a five - unless it is an obvious one.
Trouble is of course that the riders ( and I mean us all) then " expect" this leniency all the time - and the rules get dilluted until as some of you describle they bear little resemblence to what is intended - and this of course can mean the section severity/intention also gets confused from the concept the C/ourse had.

Mikes main observation was that if all trials were back to full No-Stop - while it sems the rules would be clear - the actual implementation would not be so easy.

I tend to agree. It is very easy to say - the rule is simple - cease forward motion - and it is a five.

Accept however that unless someone can provide proffessional paid observers - we rely entirely on the good will and grace of the countless volunteers we manage to press gang into the often thankless task of providing our sport.

Should one of these fine fellows or very often ladies not be strict enough to make the correct decision what should be done?

Sack them ? Send them away never to darken out doorstep again? I think not.

Even worse of course is the tendancy for riders to curse/swear or just generally show dissatisfaction with a decision - and probably this is the starting point - but it was actually this morning I noted in both my Sunday papers the controversy that soccer seems to be having about players hassling referee's.

I am afraid it is a problem where any individuals have to make a "judgement" about a competitors performance - a bit like the X factor I suppose.

In many sports it is often a panel of perhaps 4 or 6 who make this judgment. If we had 4 - 6 or even 1 or 2 observers on each section to make a co-decision it would be a lot easier ( excuse me while I just watch that pig fly past)

In reality we are more than lucky to have one observer on a section - and so whichever way we dress it up we rely entirely on their judgment.

Do I have a solution - no. Will I ever - I doubt it - but a good topic/post

[Woody]

No, definitely no rule changes required - it's crystal clear. The rider's know it and it's up to them to play by the rules. All you can hope is that the observers on sections where it happens are brave enough to award the 5. I wouldn't blame them for not doing so as not all want confrontation and their decision is made even harder when a crowd of onlookers applaud a clean which has been achieved with a technique that is good to watch (to some) but nontheless illegal. Hard to give a 5 under those circumstances. It was interesting to note in yesterday's classic experts that the best ride on the section where hopping was going on, was by Dave Thorpe who just floated the front wheel 90 degrees or more around the 'bowl' of the turn and cleaned it. Brilliant, proper no-stop and much more impressive machine control than stop and hop. Line perfect and only one attempt to get it right.

I still think it may be of some benefit to put notices at the signing on point and on the regs next year in the Classic and Miller rounds emphasising that it is a no stop trial and stopping and hopping will be penalised with a 5. That and reminding the observers when they sign on is about all you can do and just hope that seeing it emphasised will make riders think twice before doing it.

Abusing this rule, along with the other favourite of riding out and back into a section between two blue or two red markers (ie - outside the boundary of a section) to get a better line are the two things that really wind me up.

[bikespace]

Woody, on Nov 13 2006, 02:21 AM, said:

Abusing this rule, along with the other favourite of riding out and back into a section between two blue or two red markers (ie - outside the boundary of a section) to get a better line are the two things that really wind me up.

Trouble is there doesn't seem to be a rule that covers it. I agree with you, but unless the rules changed this year, I don't know of a rule that specifies that it's a failure unless you actually ride outside the boundary.
I seem to remember a rule from years ago about an imaginary line between flags, but there doesn't seem to be anything similar in todays rules, so if you don't miss a flag, you haven't crossed a boundary. Wrong in my eyes, but seems to be a bendable rule.
I take it as my job to stop that by putting enough flags in when I mark out, but I've got to a section on the odd occasion and been gutted that I've missed a flag out where they've managed to find a cheat route.

Anybody point out a rule which covers it?

[John Collins]

I think it is covered in TSR 22

Definitions: TSR 22A

Failure (g) " A machine dioes not stay within the " intended limits" of a section ?

Same in both TSR 22 B - Non Stop - Solo & S/Car

Failure ( c) Same as above

[Paioli]

john the NO STOP rule can be implemented and enforced in the classic series next year , you make
it clear from the start of next year on the regs and entry form for the riders , at the start for the
observers and late entrys and then any rider who enters and proceeds to stop in a section ,weather
to ajust there balance or bounce the frount/rear end to get out of trouble or get a better line dose it
knowing they are going to get a five, and if they proseed or any body with them argues with the
observer then they are reported and excluded, as i said earlier its started to happen in the classic
trials and this needs to stop NOW . make the classic series the exception THIS IS A NO STOP EVENT!!

IF i want to ride a stop and bounce modern trial i will ride a stop and bounce modern trial, and i go to
that trial and adapt to that riding, so if you ride stop and bounce modern trials but fancy doing a classic
you do it knowing you have to leave your stop and bounce riding techniques at home, because you have
entered a CLASSIC NO STOP event ,and if you stop you are given 5 and if you argue this with the
observer you will be reported, that should be enough to protect the observers, and any rider who
finds the need to aggressively aruge with an observer is a rider we don't need in the classic seen

IF THE RIDER KNOWS ITS NO STOP HE HAS ONLY HIMSELF TO BLAME IF HE STOPS END OF STORY !!!

[bikespace]

John Collins, on Nov 13 2006, 11:13 AM, said:

I think it is covered in TSR 22

Definitions: TSR 22A

Failure (g) " A machine dioes not stay within the " intended limits" of a section ?

Yep - that about covers it Reading with my eyes shut again. Suppose it just needs observers educating. Maybe there should be some guidance as to the point at which you are outside the boundary, or maybe CofC's just need to make it clearer. Most of the times I've been caught out by a cheat route it's been a blatant bending of the line of the flags.

On the subject of stopping, hopping etc....... I'm just wondering, is it the general concensus of opinion that non stop is the way it should be?
I only ask because the twin shock class seems to be my youth era - fantic 240's, majesty's, et al. The only rules I remember from the 70's 80's were where you could roll backwards, flick the back end over, do whatever you wanted as long as your feet stayed on the pegs. If you put your foot down while stopped though it was a 5. I spent hours practicing in the driveway trying to turn in less than a bikes length.

I must admit I don't feel strong enough to argue the point, but should there be a class where blokes around my age should be able to have a ride under the rules of the day for those twin shocks?
No flames please - I'm not bothered enough Just asking.