cleanorbust

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.

Of today's posts, I believe the Ulf Karlsson pic is in fact South Yorkshire rider Gary Wilkinson and the previous one is Joe Buckworth.

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.

I seem to recall that the Reliance Cup is the oldest trial in the calendar.

Sorry, names only for these: post no 88 - Nick Shield post no 93 - Richard Sunter post no 94 - Mike Skinner In post no 89 "Rastus" is on a 71/72 Bultaco, not a Montesa.

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.

Post no 80: not 1982 (I think he would have been on a white tank Montesa by then). Suggest 1979, in view of the Mototechnica riding gear. Post no 81: John Hemingway, on a Cota 123 or 172,circa 1973/4 Post no 85: Rob Edwards, (note tank sticker advertising his shop) around 1979.

Chris Sutton?

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.

I recall Malcolm Rathmell saying in a Q & A session before the SSDT some years ago that this bike, the 349, was not one of his favourites and he really needed to be on his mettle to get the best from it. Doesn't it exude that "works" look though!

Sorry, but that's a Montesa. Rare shot of HML struggling!

Richard Sunter, I'd guess 1977 or 78.

Good photos these - thanks for posting. A couple of corrections: the Brian Hutchinson shot is actually Nigel Greenwood. I wonder if the Gordon Farley photo is in fact the Ilkley GN; that being a time and observation trial you wouldn't see Thorpie inspecting a section. The Allan Jefferies perhaps?

I'd guess at Chris Clarke for post number 6, wouldn't know where but guess at Red Rose trial 1983 (being a 240 Fantic) 'cos the rockery looks Lancastrian to me!