minder

Without lending any bias towards either set off rules; What will the ACU do now about the rules in the UK for 2013? Many people argue that we should have the same rules as the FIM, so does that mean no-stop across the board? Now that the stop allowed marking system has been made redundant is there any point having 2 BTC series?

Clash with Scottish Championship round and not enough riders in his class to take points off his main rival. So either travel 00s of miles to ride BTC and not be Scottish Champ or be Scottish Champ and be back home in time for sunday dinner. It's still more riders in the main class than on the old format for many years but I admit it was disappointing. A national clash, french 4 day clash and the younger riders being beat in the earlier rounds would not exactly make then want to jump in the van and go all that way down the m5

Well done Ross I was stood near to James Dabill when he was looking at the scoreboard nervously waiting for Ross, Alex, Sam Connor and Ben Morphett to finish as each of them could have beaten James if they had good last laps. So I suppose these other riders. Cant imagine James being threatened with a 6th place finish on the old format.

Sorry I was referring to the Championship class not the support class. The one thing I'm in 100% agreement with the ACU is that when the numbers drop to 6 something needs to be done. Although if they want to improve the number of riders they could always include a novice and beginners class. Our club runs them and they get hundreds!!!!!!

I meant more suited in that there is a more varied terrain regardless of the rules used. At Westwood the sections were mainly made out of nothing and I think that is where the problem lies. We all try to make the best out of what we have but if you dont have a lot in the first place, should you have a BTC there? The land at Scarborough is massive and has huge scope for loads of decent sections both manmade and natural. I would measure success in terms of numbers of riders making the championship something interesting again. Over the past few years you could have almost predicted the results of the few who were riding. 1st and 2nd - Dabill or Brown. 3rd or 4th - Wigg or Challoner (if riding) next haslam or danby, next richardson, morphett, morton, robinson. 1st and 2nd place would sometimes be fairly close then a big step to 3rd and 4th then another big step to the others. For a successful championship I would want it to be closer with different riders battling it out for different positions. I dont imagine the final standings to differ that much from the previous years however, but it would be more interesting. So far we have had more riders involved and that has to be a GOOD THING. What would you say would be a failure for the changes made by the ACU?

Sorry but I don’t agree with this at all. First of all graham WASNT CoC, but thats irrelevant. Secondly, the importers: I’m sure their job shouldn’t entail marking out sections for the BTC. Why should they sponsor the series when the series already has a (neutral) sponsor? I think their sponsorship is reflected in their team riders that are riding for us mere mortals to enjoy watching. As long as I have watched the BTC, Malcolm and Shirty have been in attendance with Nigel and John at selected others. Perhaps you have been to more events than they have so have more experience and knowledge of riding and setting out trials and therefore you are right in telling them what they should and shouldn’t be doing. Will you be helping mark out and organise your clubs BTC round, passing on your knowledge? I think it is much more constructive that the importers are getting involved and trying to make it work, rather than sitting at their pc criticising it. The previous year round wasn’t as good as some would have us believe. However it was better organised. But I went with a group of friends to watch and we all still left in less than 3 hours. For those of us that need reminding here are the links to the results: Championship http://www.trialscen...%20Class%20.pdf Support http://www.trialscen...h%20Classes.pdf Any trial where riders such of such calibre as Haslam, Danby and Richardson drop over a 100 is not going to encourage riders to support the event. I went this year with an open mind and would not say that this year’s event was better but it certainly wasn’t worse. I was entertained enough to stay until the end at least. I would like to see people stop being so negative and support the series and give it a genuine chance for the remainder of the rounds. Then we may be able to tell if the changes have been successful. If they haven’t, by the end of the series, then at least we can say that we tried it. Personally I am looking forward to the Scarborough round. The trials I have watched there have generally been good (with the exception being down to the weather) and I have fond memories of riding there in the past. I am certainly expecting it to be better organised and the land is much more suitable for a BTC. So as the CoC for the event said; go there to support the event and go there with an open mind instead of all this negativity.

Has anybody noticed that sometimes people give us their opinion and drop hints as though they know what they are talking about when actually they are making things up based on hearsay. Here are some samples "They MAY have permission to look at the sections but I believe the C0fC at Westwood was not happy about them being involved and did not approve of the "alterations"......"The opinion of the CofC was ignored and my Info was he was there on Saturday...." Please lets not make things up when most people are coming up with some good points based on fact. The CoC was not there on saturday and didnt actually have anything to do with the sections. The improters spent all day 'modifying' the sections before and after the practice as many of the sections were either dangerous or couldnt be ridden no-stop. Some were eased, some were stiffened up. Surely they cant be criticised for that - giving up their own time in an effort to try and make the trial a success.

Surely if you're looking for a new bike based on this years ssdt for performance and reliability then you should want a gasser. By far the most reliable and 4 riders in the top 5 can't be beaten. May want to wait till they've got rid of the formula stuff though!!!!

Think it's reliable info. Heard rumours that it was going to have same forks as shedco. Think master cylinders are from new company that have taken over ajp-hopefully no more formula on gg!!! Do you think it fell over before they could take pic cos front brake lever looks bent to me!!

A O60s guy in our club had a 315 mont. He has just bought a 2010 125 gas gas and thinks it's the best thing since sliced toast. He only now realises what a handful the mont was. They are a really good bike but perhaps not suited for a 'mature' rider. Just out of interest what are the mods to the carb and exhaust on the scorpa?

Will there be any results issued? We were watching at Dovedale where most riders made it through. It wouldn't be ideal but at least you get a result for all efforts put in by organisers, observers and riders. Unless it is to be run later in the year? Such a shame with all the hard work put in but it was a particularly awful day.

How can you say that? What more could he have done on that section - a triple backflip perhaps? Ironically that section is usually muddy and full of ditch water!!!!! Also Where exactly does he hesitate?

Firstly, good effort motorcycle emptyness - great videos to keep us talking!!! Also good to hear such honesty from Wiggy. Interesting to hear him mention about Sams handlebars touching the floor - how many of us picked that up? If we cant do it watching the videos over and over how can the observer be expected to pick it up? I think on the whole, the observer did an OK job. Its one thing for us all to watch the videos replayed sat on our own and make the decisions sat in the comfort of our home, but its completely different to be out there doing it. In fact, who are we to criticise? It would have taken a lot of bottle to give Alexz marks especially with the crowd giving him applause. The fact that he spotted 2 little dabs that Alexz made with his left leg (better indicated in the second video) is either a coincidence or the best piece of observing Ive ever seen. Remember he only got to see it once, in real time. The people who say that Connor and Fry deserved a 5, because they had momentary paused - I wonder how many of you would have actually bothered to observe and would have actually given that decision. Observers are only human and they are not professionals. Dont forget how many controversial decisions professional referees make week in week out in the premier league and they have the help of 3 other professional assistants. Its a good idea to have videos as a teaching aid to observers and even training courses (can anyone really see the ACU doing this - have the T&E committee ever observed?) but it is still down to volunteers at the end of the day. One thing the nobody has mentioned is how much the riders try to exploit the observer. They are used to getting away with bending the rules (no matter which rules are in place) Alexz (and a good example of this is Ricky Wiggins) had plenty of opportunity to put his feet down to get out of trouble but he chose to hang on and therefore pushed his luck. If riders got 5d for this week in week out they would put their feet down a lot quicker!!! For those people who blame the rules, I have seen a lot worse on stop allowed. Imagine Alexz in the same situation but he could stop. He would have probably layed on the bank two or three times and taken much longer and ended up with the 0. Which would have been more skillful - this, or Thorpys ride? Dont forget this was the hardest section in the trial and every one of the riders made a genuine attempt at it and genuinely thought that they could make the ends cards. You cant say the same in stop allowed trials at this level. This is the major problem - section severity - not the rules. The no-stop rule increases the severity of the sections without the section being physically too difficult for the majority of the riders. Ive been to good trials that have been no-stop but I have also been to good trials that have been stop-allowed - its in the skill of the CofC. In my experience I have been to more bad trials that have been stop-allowed and lets face it, its not exciting to watch rider after rider balancing for ages. A time limit stops this but how many clubs can have an extra observer on each section with a stopwatch? (Men cant do 2 jobs at once FACT, women can (apparantly!)) Its got to be worth giving this rule change a go - hasnt it? At least then we can compare with fact rather than all these theories about what COULD POSSIBLY PROBABLY MAYBE happen.

You beat me to it. Ross, Ricky also?

Motorcycleemptyness do you have videos of Ross Danby, Ricky Wiggins, Dan Thorpe and James Fry on the same section? Ross and Ricky were 0 until this section also but got 5s and Dan and James were on 1 but got 0. It would be interesting to see because as Ive previously mentioned, this section decided the trial.

First of all don't get confused with this being the fault of the no-stop rule. The observer should not have given Alexz a 2. The correct score would have been a 5 because he stopped (more than once) and I honestly think that he would have accepted this score rather than the 2 which he didn't have. The trial was pretty much decided on this 1 section and this is what I saw: The front runners (with the exception of James Fry) completed the section within 5 minutes of each other. Ross Danby 5d the section for stopping. Sam Connor cleaned the section without stopping. As previously mentioned, Alexz stopped but got given a 2. Ricky Wiggins got 5d for stopping. Dan Thorpe cleaned the section without stopping. All riders present were informed that the observer was 'strict' before they made their attempt. The riders that were given 5s were all in trouble, and all had the opportunity to put their feet down to get themselves out of trouble, but they simply held on too long and ran the risk of being given a 5. Later on James Fry cleaned the section without stopping. The results came in with a 3-way tie for the win on 1 mark. Fry lost the tie on furthest 0, Connor and Thorpe tied for the win. Alexz was upset at the fact that he had been given a 2, but as mentioned it should have been a 5. To mention that Alexz was denied the win and 'lost' the trial takes away from the fact that Connor and Thorpe genuinely cleaned the section without stopping and therefore deserved their win. I can only presume that Alexz didn't protest because it is an ACU rule that you cant protest against an observers decision unless the CofC deems that a mistake has been made. Just to point out the CofC was present for all these riders' attempts at the section and chose not to over rule his observer. As for beatabeta's unbiased view of the 'pathetic' no-stop rules, this was the second year of running the Wallace Cup no-stop and it is the second year it has been full up. In fact this year the entry was oversubscribed. Previously they used to have around 60 entries. If the sport carries on with these 'pathetic' rules then it will surely be the end of it!!!!!