baldilocks

Every gas gas I have had takes 3 kicks to start hot or cold. Jetting normally ok but at sea level it may pink a little about 1/4 to 1/2 throttle. If it does then a number 3 slide will cure it but they are about £60. Most people just put up with it.

I'm confused as to what you mean. Are you saying as soon as the lever moves a little twords the handlebar the clutch stops drive to the rear wheel ?

When I got my TRS I still had the gas gas in the garage. If you line up the rear spindles the footpegs, swinging arm spindle and bars are very close. Only material difference is the head angle is steeper on the gas gas. In terms of riding position I find the beta feels much bigger than a gas gas. TRS very similar to gas gas

I remember this coming in as a rule but didn't know it still applied ?

Mines only 4 months old, no play in the linkage yet, I've stripped and greased the linkage twice. Biggest advantage is the linkage design as the lowest point isn't a bearing so you don't damage the seals. Mines done a few nationals and santigosa three day so it's on its second set of chain and sprockets and rear pads. It's had one set of rear wheel bearings and I've bought a spare filter. I can't fault it. To ride it's lighter than a gas gas pro but the front is more stable than my 2014 gas gas. Probably a combination of better forks and the head angle isn't as steep. Mines a 280 RR, I came off a 280 gas gas racing, no issues with power it's got plenty. I've recently raised the gearing to make 1st a little higher. You need to try any bike before you buy one I would say but I'd buy another one tomorrow

Fair enough yes but what about the second section he rides in that video, he tries to go over a rock and ends up hopping backwards and sideways off it. After this the observer is still indicating clean, he fives it later on anyway. Not consistent really is it ?

I was going to start a separate thread for this entitled "The Way to Dublin", its an old joke where a tourist asks an Irishman if he can direct him to Dublin, the Irishman replies "Well I wouldn't start from here...." But , as we have a had a few changes in recent years to the rules, we are now in a position to evaluate each before making any further change so perhaps "here" is a good place to start. But what problems are we seeking to address this time ? For me we need some of the intended benefits of stop for a one and no stop, and we need something that can be reliably enforced. For those that may have forgotten the original rules of stop permitted allowed reversing, hopping and stationary balancing as long as the rider was feet up. Many arguments were had about had the bike started moving when the dab occurred, and at world level the stationary dab became the norm rather than the five as required by the rules. A further problem was the time taken to ride sections, Graham Jarvis may have set a record at over 7 minutes to ride one section at Houghton Tower in the 90s. The section time problem meant that the overall time to complete the event was getting longer and longer, if your competitor is in the section balancing all you can do is wait or ask for a 5. Something had to be done. So we then had stop for a one, not sure if it was with a time limit initially but you couldn't reverse any more ? Again at world and local level the stop for a 1 wasn't really enforced effectively and some reversing but not a lot was ok, ie just as observers didn't give a 1 for a stop they also didn't penalise a small reverse when balancing. But more flowing sections and less hop, hop hop was supposed to be an outcome and may well have succeeded. We then had a year when you could manoeuvre or even reverse the bike with a foot down, this wasn't popular but it was easy to observe, it led to even bigger sections which was the wrong direction, I don't think even the riders liked it. Just before the new no stop period we had stop permitted but with no reversing and a time limit. This was good to watch although riders regularly reversed a little, especially when setting off with the front wheel on a rock, but again this wasn't penalised. So under all sets of rules some leeway has always been given. I think for the sake of fairness we have to accept that we either have zero tolerance or we forget about trying to identify exactly the split second a bike has stopped. Look at the observers from local trials up to the WTC, these are often not the youngest of people, they might be struggling to see the whole section. Its not practical to have a zero tolerance for stopping or reversing given the likely observers and style of modern sections. Don't get me wrong I completely understand that without our observers we have no sport. My point is why put the observer in such a difficult position ? So at all levels the concept of no stop observing is finished as a reliable measurement of performance in my view. But we still , again in my view, do not want sections where you must be able to hop or that are dangerous. I think we need rules for the setting out of sections. Bikes need a specified minimum turning circle and it must be possible to get a bike through the section on full lock. We also need to think perhaps about maximum vertical fall for the rider should they not get up the section. That man made piece of nonsense Michael Brown fell off in Japan a couple of years ago had no place in an outdoor trial. And at national and world level we go back to timed sections. Local trials we can apply a time limit if the clerk of course wants to but most of the time if the sections are correct it wont be necessary. Its still going to be a five if the handlebar touches the ground, or the riders feet are behind the spindle or the same side of the bike. Finally some education is required of riders, course setters and observers. The video of Section 13 in Japan that @guys posted in the video forum needs to be shown to all as how not to do it. Perfectly good section apart from the start, why put that turn in at all ? Instead of riders riding along one side of the fence to ride back again and then complete a stationary hop just start the section so they ride directly over the fence. Alex Ferrer is the only rider to tackle it this way but doesn't get up, the rest all should have been fived for stopping. The riders know how they rode it is the most effective way and they were prepared to take the risk that the observer wouldn't give them a five for stopping, Gelabert (spelling?) does get fived but he balances longer than most. So next time Mr Clerk of the Course leave the corner out, its supposed to be no stop. Next time Mr Observer five the first rider who stops Then the riders wont need to make a decision... Under what I'm proposing you still have the no stop section ridden over the fence at the start but the riders can stop if they want and Gelabert gets treated the same as everyone else who stopped. just some ideas....

Minders have been doing that for some time. Anyone who has ridden a northern trial at the front will have rubbed the slime off a rock with their foot at some point so I don't see that squirting water is much different, it's less of an impact than moving rocks or filling holes in. Issue for me with this is that the minder is doing it not the rider.

As much as I preferred that to watch the top 5s ability to land either wheel consistently in exactly the right place meant the rest just ran out of time or missed the line resulting in a big crash. Hence no stop was supposed to fix that by reducing the ability gap

I think that's certainly a major issue. The sections are either as they were under stop permitted or they have 20 yards of nothing between piles of rocks. It's very difficult to construct man made no stop sections. However the Spanish round looked like fantastic terrain but still had lots of tight turns. Venues need to be better but still needs a no stop clerk of the course.

Some rose tinted glasses here my friend. Under stop for a 1 it quickly became stop for 3-5 seconds is still a clean. And a little reversing doesn't matter. Timed stop permitted was good to watch but it made the better riders even better. No stop was supposed to level the playing field a little and make sections less dangerous. However organisers are still running pretty huge sections just with long run ups. I think we now have a different problem in that nobody from observers to riders wants no stop. So do we set rules for sections to control the danger aspect but then allow stop permitted and reversing ? We have to have rules that observers and organisers are happy to enforce. Otherwise its a farce really and inconsistent. No doubt Bou wins whatever the rules

As much as I'm dreading it I think another rules discussion is almost upon us. I like no stop sections but if you are not going to set no stop sections or observe no stop then it's not no stop.

From every trial I've been to since we tried stop = 1 trials is stop allowed.

Rode Encamp 2 day last year. Similar trial, well organised great course. It's not running this year but hopefully will be next year again. Been to Andorra for trials and ski ing. Love the place

Not sure who you are inchhigh but you can try my 280, wrong CC I know but you will still get something out of it in terms of how it handles etc. Ive had mine since February, its done enough work to require new chain and sprockets and new rear pads. apart from an air filter and a number plate I haven't spent anything on repairs, really like it to ride and cant fault the build quality. Highly recommended.

Just to say I watched the video Trial GP put up on YouTube. I liked it, cheers

Michael Brown had the same set up on his at the ssdt a couple of years ago.

In previous years they couldn't as the hose was routed inside the swinging arm. It's clipped on top on the 17 production bike not sure how it's fitted to dabills? Does he have a different frame or exhaust middle box which means the standard m cylinder can't be fitted ? If not then it's just reliability, I can't see the fluid getting that hot in a stop / start world round

If it's damaged in a trial it's much easier to bleed the old type as you can pressurise the system by fitting a different cap ?

Hi most trials in the north east centre now have a conducted course including this Sundays seaton delaval trial near Rothbury. I'm just waiting for the club to provide a postcode and I'll add it to the entry in the trialscentral calendar

Yes Oni I get all that. The point I'm trying to get across is based on my experience of fitting a pack measured at 9.9mm with a digital Vernier. This should not have been a light clutch, I understand what you are saying. The fact it did means to me that how hard you compress the plates using the Vernier will make a difference to the measurement. In addition when the thickness is this critical measuring a pack soaked in oil probably makes some difference when its squashed, ie it may compress .05mm more as you drive the surface oil out. I used a combination of used plates to get to 9.9mm. A new dry clutch pack may not compress as far using a Vernier ? The DP pack my friend bought measured at 10mm when removed from the box, this is sold as ready to fit, presumably as its expected to bed in by 0.15mm relatively quickly ? To get back to the original question just go an burn the clutch up some 4th gear hills, if it doesn't work you've still had more fun than trying to sand a fibre plate

A diaphragm clutch doesnt have 6 springs, it has a single beville spring. The spring was changed, I think in 2006, for a lighter one. Fitting the later one will help with the clutch feeling heavy. I agree with Billy on the measurement when not under compression. I did a friends recently at 9.9 just by hand, the clutch is very light but doesn't slip.

Hi Chewy how are you? This will start another panto session of opinions BUT In my experience including SSDT, Tre Giorni Valtellina, Santigosa etc etc the clutch works best with dexron 3 ATF. It's cheap as chips but that's not why I use it. All of my Pro bikes have continually started on the third kick hot or cold. No idea why but I can live with it. I've now got a TRS RR by the way, very good. Cheers

I think first model 349s did and 248s. Nothing new under the sun...

23 years after his first win takes some believing