cleanorbust

Lovely job, well done.

Not recommended of course , but you'd be surprised at how many people rarely, if ever, touch the thing.

Good post bultaco340. It's the human element, which can involve leniency, inconsistency etc, that can allow problems to creep in. But as is commonly stated, we can't have trials without it, and we're grateful to the observers we have. Electronic observing which might determine whether a stop is really a stop, isn't with us yet. I guess similar issues arise at the local tennis club: hey Mr Umpire was that match-deciding shot we just saw in our out? On the line or just beyond it? Electronic hawk eye? Not at this level mate. Video replay? Ha ha, you must be joking. Just make a judgement on what you saw in a split second. Do your best, try to be fair, and ignore any complaints. And remember, whichever way you decide the winner will enjoy the plaudits and the loser, well, they'll make their own arrangements. Then everyone will move on to the next match. Just a game, after all.

The suggestion was 1 for a stop instead of 5 with no other changes to the scoring system, so a thundering fail would beat a two dab ride. Doesn't seem quite right.

Most of 'em are still in the car park looking for an elusive spark.

So the correct interpretation of the proposal would be........?

So if I have two or three dabs in a section my best plan would be to make sure I stop before the ends cards as that would reduce my score down to one? Or have I misunderstood what is being proposed? Similarly, when I clanged to a halt at the foot of a series of rock steps because they're way beyond my ability, my score of one would beat that of the rider who floats over the lot with a couple of fleeting dabs. Fair? Sorry to be Devil's advocate and all that, I actually hate cynicism and don't mean this to sound that way. Just goes to show that there isn't an ideal answer I suppose, which is probably why we are where we're at with it all.

I think we've established that observing strictly to the rules wouldn't be generally seen as doing a better job.

Over many years I've known many good observers who might best be described as robust characters. I think many of them would have found it a difficult step to mark 5 on the card in yesterday's situation, for various reasons, correct though that would be. I think the observer was in a difficult position and had to make a decision. Perhaps it is most salient to note the reaction of one of Dougie Lampkin's closest rivals who witnessed the whole thing. He knew it was a stop but dismissed it from his mind and got on with his own attempt. It happens, always will.

Yes, the marking will never be perfect, and like bad penalty decisions in the Premier League, decisions against you are supposed to even themselves out with those you get away with. But they don't always. Could be argued though that one rider, the trial leader, was indeed favoured over another, the second place man, who did all he could by cleaning the same section and found himself three marks adrift at the end of the day instead of just one.

Interesting discussion for me as I witnessed the incident yesterday. The loud urging of the crowd to Dougie to haul his bike through the section after he had stopped, and cheering when he did manage to do this, may have made it feel that a 3 was right/expected. Two opposing viewpoints seem to have merged from the debate: 1. Some leniency should be allowed for riders who only just stop forward motion, or try hard to continue through the section after stopping, but it can be said that awarding 3s in these circumstances disadvantages those who keep moving forward, and this doesn't really treat all riders the same as some who stop get 3s, some 5s. I have benefitted from this on occasion, even asked to have a 3 converted to a 5 when I have blatantly stopped and having a 3 awarded would be in no way equivalent to someone who kept moving throughout. 2. A stop is a stop and should be a 5 every time. Rules allow for option 2 only. I would like to observe at the Scottish, and have done so decades ago, but am afraid I would now be relieved of my duties after a couple of days as me giving a 5 for every stop would cause too much controversy when the decision affects who wins. I'm rooting for Dougie to win, but hope he does so by more than 2 marks.

He's doing what guys of similar ability would do in the 70s/80s. The bike's always been capable of it.

The more the merrier, up to a point. I'm fortunate to belong to a club which has its own huge practice ground available to members 24/7. I often meet riders there who are happy to spend their hard-earned on new bikes and quality gear. I like to engage these folks in discussion and we get around to why they don't enter trials. They typically respond: -they don't think they're good enough to compete (they are) - they don't want to commit to riding on a particular date, would rather turn up and enjoy themselves when they have time but mostly: - they have given trials a go and can't see any point in paying money to queue at sections, they just want to ride their bikes Pushing entry levels much beyond the current local level of 80 to 100 could have some current competitors thinking the same way. Could it be that there is a natural optimum capacity for some clubs and venues, beyond which enjoyment suffers, and we are close to it in some areas? If achieving 100 entries is good, would it be a success if promoting the sport brought two or three hundred along? I am aware of land being tragically lost to trials through the selfish actions of some riders adopting known trials venues as their practice areas. I worry that within increased numbers there will be a larger cohort of such idiots, and we haven't been able to stamp out this problem over the years. On a personal note, I know that Breagh and myself have both enjoyed a long life of trials enjoyment - I remember when you started! - and we both have trials' best interests at heart. Hope I'm not coming across as a miserable pessimist and if I am at least we're enjoying a good discussion. Sorry I've led this thread so far from its original subject. .

Not saying that new riders aren't a good thing, just that letting the sport continue in its well established low key manner is OK, as opposed to trying to grow it into something it's not and never has been. The bigger we become, the more unwelcome attention we attract. Besides, I don't want to join a queue of 200 riders at the first section!

I agree that historically trials as a sport which may appeal to the public at large has not been promoted much at all. Question is, is that a bad thing? By not promoting itself the sport has ridden ebbs and flows of popularity to reach its current natural level. I recall being horrified to see that Argos were starting to sell motorised bikes/quads for kids - all well and good until you consider how many people would bother to seek permission to use these responsibly on private land, as opposed to letting rip in the local woods or "waste land" creating public negativity which spreads itself to responsible trials riders who do everything by the book so endangering land permissions we have spent years in nurturing. A manufacturer led push to sell more trials bikes to the uninitiated public could have a similar effect. Yes, clubs could promote trials responsibly but doing so on a scale which would significantly increase sales has never really been part of the culture, and some would say that we as riders, as opposed to manufacturers, are fine with that. I think that loss of land fuelled by government-led public distaste for leisure activities which use fossil fuels or are perceived to disturb the countryside, rather than reduced sales, will ultimately do for trials if anything is going to.

Some years ago I attended a 4rt test day where Dougie Lampkin and Sandiford supported riders were looking after the punters. The locations was a grassy hillside slicked up by a steady drizzle. Along with many others, I couldn't make much of the bike and as one of the expert riders helped to pull me up one of the cambered slopes he said "yeah, they don't actually grip too well on mud". That was all I needed to know. Been happy on a two stroke ever since.

What indeed. On one of my last visits to a dealer a chap arrived to collect his trials bike from being "serviced" (the sort of thing I thought we all did at home in a spare half hour). Among the specialist tasks he had asked to be carried out was the fitting of a new spark plug.

Been using a rear tyre with tube and without rimlock for years (on a Sherco) and run normal trials pressure ( 3.5 psi) without a problem.

Worth investing in a low pressure gauge if you haven't already got one. "About" 4 psi could be a little over, you should be safe with 3 or 3 and a quarter, which is 25 - 30% softer, so quite a difference in grip.

"One careful owner" is always a good one. It may even be true but says nothing of the half dozen slackers whose hands it's been through, whose "maintenance" comprises of power-washing the grease from the bearings and parking it up to rust at the back of the garage.

Some clubs do use a self observing system, where groups of four or so ride round observing each other. Not over-popular in my experience, can give rise to some questionable scores. Also wouldn't suit me too well as I like to spend longer inspecting a section than most riders. Other clubs pay observers (a tenner in the case I am thinking of) and never seem to be short of manpower.

Sounds like a good result, and you know you'll get any help you need with tech assistance on this forum. Fancy posting a picture or two for us all to see?

Sorry, misunderstood the type of stand you meant. Mine is a triangulated prop stand.

Mine came with a new TY250 mono: Y = 29 cm Z = 36cm overall height = 49cm as there is a vertical leg extending up from the top corner of the triangle, which is bent inwards to locate in hole in frame.