ianw

b40rt, it's disappointing that you feel the need to resort to name calling, but if that's the best you can do? How can anyone that is 'objective' possibly argue that these latest rules are proving to be good for the sport at the highest level? Remember, I didn't start this thread. This is two years with these new rules, and the scoring is very, very clearly a big problem to a huge number of people. At this point, surely an objective person would question whether the current rules are actually working towards the long term interests of trials. Apparently the primary objectives of the change were to make trials easier at the highest level, and to close the gap between the best riders, and the next best. HAS THAT HAPPENED???? Very clearly, the gap has actually widened. There is absolutely no point burying your head in the sand and saying, 'well it would be OK if the observers.....', because they are clearly not going to. Every single observer at a world round is carefully trained on the theory of the rules, yet almost every single observer uses common sense and marks a good display of skill as good display of skill. Why is that?

I just watched footage of the latest round. We should all be embarrassed that we are trials riders and this is taking place. Thierry Michaud is destroying this sport quickly with some idealogical nonsense that he can make trials like it was 40 years ago with a couple of rule changes. This rubbish appeals to no-one. It is simply not a display of rider skills, and the disparity between riders given 5's is absolutely appaling. It is nearly the end of the season, and if this absolute garbage occurs again next year, heads should roll.

I don't know why criticising Thierry's WTC rule changes will destroy the sport. This thread started after the WTC has been using these rules for almost two full seasons. The discontent is there at every single world round and the riders and observers continue to make their feelings well known, (but they are ignored over and over). The spectators are making their feelings known by staying away. The rule changes were forced upon everyone in the WTC with no consultation, and they are not producing the desired results. Thank goodness that the regulators in Australia can think for themselves and are not going to implement non-stop in this country.

I'm not sure why a petition would change Thierrys mind. He can see what everyone else sees, has been spoken to by hundreds of people, but does nothing to fix the mess he has created. Let the crowds continue to dwindle, let the young riders continue to leave the sport in droves, and let's keep trying to take the sport in a very narrow, philosophically driven direction because that's how it was when the tired old men now running this sport were kids.

The idiots running the WTC are driving the remaining nails into the coffin of global trials. Only very stupid people would force this rubbish to continue. The riders don't like it, the observers don't like, the spectators don't like it, and everyone leaves a WTC round frustrated. The change to non-stop for WTC rounds was a mistake, but continuing in the face of the evidence is just stupidity.

Don't listen to the talk about a 300 being too big. IMO, all other things being equal, a 300 is easier to ride than a 250 at any skill level because it is normally at a lower state of tune. Buy based on local support. I owned several Betas followed by several Shercos. Having owned both, I don't like Aluminium framed trials bikes any more. They look good and the idea is appealing, but the Betas were horrible to work on compared to the Shercos, (enough so to make me say never again). While I do agree that the build quality of the Betas is the best of any brand, the most trouble free bikes I owned were the Shercos.

I have tried to contact Youthstream over their irrelevant coverage of FIM motocross in the past, but have never had a reply. They are obviously trying to be 'clever' and market their product to a wider audience, but their coverage 'trivialises' the sport. It's as if they just don't get it at all. Rubbish commentary, rubbish interviews, and poor competition footage. Their coverage of both MX and Trials is terrible.

The tragedy is that the FIM doesn't believe that trials should be spectacular. Thierry doesn't like the way that trials was getting 'bigger and bigger'. He want's it to go back to being old men riding in streams, just like the good old days. The only people who can afford to ride trials professionally in countries like Australia and the US are doing it by providing entertainment with riding displays at car shows etc. The only guys that make any money from Trials in Australia are 4 or 5 freestyle trials riders. The self indulgent non-stop rubbish the FIM is forcing upon the sport will effectively make the WTC irrelevant, because it is clearly not what people want to see, and clearly not what young riders want to emulate.

The FIM listens to no-one. They know whats's best. Boofoons!!!

Lucky the riders were able to sort it out. Strange that the riders could see the looming problems, but the FIM couldn't. Makes you think they may be out of touch?

Sounds like the riders had to band together to force day one to be abandoned. Makes you wonder about the people running this sport at the highest level? How on earth does a world round get set like this when the video shows that the problems were obvious to the riders before the event. Was the decision to abandon made by the riders of FIM?

I meant that they are working hard with videos, observer training, meetings with riders/obesrvers before the event to get the observing consistent, BUT THEY ARE FAILING. The current situation is not fixable without a rule change, and no amount of talking to observers will fix it.

Well done jj65. I have been an avid stop allowed exponent, but I can see 1 to 5 working, so I voted that way. It would encourage a rider to keep going but still take chances not to foot, and could well be the best of both worlds. I do think, however, that a stop should only become a stop after a prescribed time, maybe 1, 2 or 3 seconds? Additionally, the stop allowed time limits will still need to be in place to stop riders taking a deliberate '1' and sitting there for 20 seconds preparing for a big step.

atomant, there is no longer any point saying that the observing needs to be 'better'. The observing can't possibly get better under the current rules. Saying that Toni Bou was waiting 20 seconds before a huge rock step is part of the problem we have. It's simply not accurate, and he can almost ride indoor non-stop. The WTC and Thierry Michaud are putting an enormous effort into observing at the highest level, but the rubbish is still happening. Five is clearly too harsh for a feet up stop, and only possibly makes sense if you are only driven by a philosophical bent, rather than a practical one. There is no other sport on the planet where random people are trying to force competitors to compete with a certain 'style', and what is happening in trials is ludicrous. There is no way that the riding on display in the video's of the first Britsh Chamionship this year is good to watch. The riders look like unskilled idiots, (which they are not). I know observers, riders, and spectators from the Australian World round this year, and the event was damaging for all concerned because of inconsistent observation. That is in spite of everyone's best efforts and under the strict control of the worlds best 'experts'. If this was a business, and a CEO kept doing something so flawed, he would be sacked. I keep wondering why old folk who can't ride very are so determined to force non-stop on the good riders of the world. No one was forcing old timers to 'stop' while riding in their lower grades, and I don't get why old timers are so intent on forcing good riders to ride 'their way' because it is pure and noble and oh so British. I regard the change to the current non-stop rules as the most selfish and narrow minded decisions that I have ever seen in any sport.

It's about the huge difference between a clean and a 5 under the current rules. A dab or too will 'all come out in the wash', but not an arbitrary 5 v's 0 subject to the 'interpretation' of the observer. Missing a dab is one thing, but when they allow a rider to stop but give them a clean, it is simply not a 'mistake', but a deliberate decision to ignore the rule because it doesn't make sense. Simplistically, it is easier to ride non-stop at an intermediate level, but harder at an advanced level. At beginner level, all trials can be ridden non-stop regardless of the rules as it is really only 'trail riding'. Advanced riders learn advanced skills by stopping, and many of the skills that have been developed require a 'dynamic stop' to execute. Once they learn those skills stopping, advanced riders can then learn how to use them non-stop. The skills are here to stay. The worlds best riders still win at non-stop using skills developed by stopping, and Toni Bou is probably even more dominating than he was becausue he can use all the tricks but still keep moving. All the WTC guys still practice stopping. Go and watch them in the pits or warming up. We can't take that knowledge back now, they know the secrets, and the tricks will remain part of trials whatever we do. The question we must ask, however, is whether we are making it harder for riders to progress into the expert ranks, or easier as Thierry had hoped. I believe we are making it harder, less enjoyable for the riders and there is no question that WTC trials is not nearly as appealing to the majority of spectators as it was. looks like lose-lose situation to me.

smarty156, I hope someone in high places reads your post, because it sums up the situation perfectly. Toni Bou is really the only rider in the world that makes non-stop look good, but most of the observers at WTC level bend the rules to give the other guys a chance at his expense. It is a shambles. The same thing happens at small events all around the world. It doesn't matter if you are in favour of stop or non-stop, you can see that the current rules are unfair and divisive, and do not encourage riders to have a good go at cleaning a section. If in doubt, put your foot down and keep moving. It is nonsense. Although I firmly believe that for trials to survive the rules should go back to 'stop-allowed' , failing that, the current rules need urgent amendment. The penalty should be 1 for a stop of more than 3 seconds. Additionally, I believe that you should be able to score '5' made up of either 5 stops or 5 dabs, to encourage riders to keep trying to ride correctly.

The reason the conversation gets back to the same place each time is that non-stop is not really being run as non-stop in most places by most observers. Why, because the current rules are clearly too harsh, and everyone except Thierry Michaud seems to get that. The current non-stop rules were clearly flawed last year, yet the FIM doesn't amend them for this year. Go figure? Non-stop trials is harder to ride for every advanced grade. It may be easier for grandpa, or a beginner, but not for skilled riders. Look at Toni Bou's score compared to the worst rider in that grade, and tell me again how it is helping encouraging lesser riders. Does anyone have the global trials bike sales figures for the last couple of years? I am guessing that we should see increased bike sales with all of these riders loving non-stop now?

perce, you are missing the elephant in the corner of the room. The rules were changed, (we are told by Thierry), to make trials EASIER, not harder. This is by far the single biggest issue facing trials. Although times are very tough globally, and trials faces big challenges as the 'middle class' around the world runs out of money, the last thing the sport needed was a very controversial rule change. The majority of trials riders globally simply do not want to compete under the current non-stop rules. Let's think about this for a while. The rules have been changed to something that the majority of riders don't want, spectators don't want, young people don't relate to, but somehow it's going to be good for the sport because it is more 'pure' in the minds of old riders ? As you also point out, it's actually harder, not easier. If you think trials was struggling before, watch how quickly it falls in a heap under the new rules. Let's hope things are brought to a head by observers dropping out before the riders drop out.

b40rt, not sure I get the point? It shows someone riding a grade either set way too hard, or the rider is in the wrong grade. There are a lot of riders who could clean that section under either the stop or non-stop rules. Observers will always be lenient on a rider 'out of their depth'. I have always believed that you should be able score 5 points footing, (same as a failure) for both Stop and non-stop. I think it is rubbish when a rider 'paddles' through a section with 20 dabs yet beats someone who made a good attempt at a clean, but scored five. With non-stop it's even more ridiculous, and the current rules encourage riders to foot as often as possible if they think the section is difficult, (because 20 dabs beats a stop 3-5).

This is a sad situation for trials. The non-stop rules were nonsense when they were tried in the early 2000's, and are nonsense now. They are not addressing the real reasons why trials numbers are down, and are chasing people from the sport in droves for various reasons. The 'stop allowed' rules used universally two years ago gave everyone an enjoyable ride, gave the spectators something to watch, and the young riders an exciting challenge if they wanted it. The new rules are a well-meant but very misguide attempt to return to the 'glory days', and the problems they are creating are obvious. It is absolutely staggering that UK trials are theoretically run under 'non-stop', but in reality stop is allowed. Talk about 'bury your head in the sand', (but then the WTC rounds are just as variable, and they spend an enormous amount of time and effort on observation consistency). I can't understand why riders around the world are tolerating non-stop as it now being governed. Except for Toni Bou and possibly Adam Raga, the non-stop rules make good riders look like incompetent idiots legging their way through everything. The current riding would better be called 'stop then panic'. Thankfully, in Australia our governing trials body is controlled democratically, and the non-stop rules are not being adopted.

Come on!! Surely no one thinks that the FIM increased the WTC weight limit to improve the reliability of production bikes? I can't imagine what their motive would be for doing that. There are reliability issues with some bikes, and those manufacturers know who they are and should be ashamed. It is very disappointing for all of us when companies can't be bothered fixing problems from year to year, but it is an attitude and market size problem, not a weight problem.

I think it would simply have been a mass revolt if they had gone to 76.5kg, so they stopped well short. When most brands had production bikes close to the old limit already, why would those brands have been in favour of the big weight increase that was implemented? The scuttlebutt that I heard from the Australian world round was that the factory guys were outraged at having to get production bikes out of crates and then add lead weights to them so they could be used. I know for sure that the riders hated it. Isn't it hard to believe that the key brands, GasGas, Sherco, and Beta would have been pushing for this increase? This year, it costs more money to buy a production GasGas and carry out the necessary additions ready for a WTC round than last year. Production bikes will not increase in weight, because that is not what the customers want. Luckily, it appears that most countries are choosing to ignore the FIM on both the weight and non-stop changes.

MMMMmmm, sounds like you must be out of logical arguments to resort to name calling? Maybe we are Communists too? The only small part of your comment worth acknowledging is the part about KTM. KTM are probably the best small volume dirt bike development company in the world, and would do a sterling job of developing and building a trials bike. The only real problem with that, however, is that the small trials market already has too many brands. All anyone is saying here is why change the rules just for Honda, because that is clearly what has been done?

There is little argument that Bou's bike shows only a passing resemblance to the production bike, and is extremely expensive. Everyone in the WTC except the Honda riders are really riding something based on a stock bike, because that is what the industry can afford. It works very well, and the real factories make very good stock bikes because they basically compete on what they sell. By comparison, Honda makes fantastic bikes for their WTC riders, but their stock bikes are overweight and expensive. Honda appears to only be involved in trials for promotional purposes. It's just another motorsport title they can put on their list. That's why it is so bizzare to increase the weight limit so that Honda can maybe sell a token handful of production bikes, at the expense of every 'real' factory. Surely there is a good argument for WTC to use a production based rule? Wouldn't that have the effect of forcing Honda to either get out, or make a competitive production bike like everyone else? We really need to question whether Honda's involvement in trials as it stands is good for the sport overall. They are a very capable company, and it is shame they are not involved in trials to sell trials bikes on their merit.

Guys, you make some good points. I agree that the cracked frames should be warrantied. It is disappointing when leading brands don't bother to slightly revise their frames year by year to stop breakages. They could make small modifications, but they don't bother. The only way to make them take notice is for the dealers to warranty genuine failures and charge them back to the manufacturers. As far as I can tell, the 'trouble free' life expectancy of a GasGas/Beta/Sherco trials bike is probably around 250hrs under an good rider weighing 85kg. If you practice once a week and compete once a week, the bike will last one year. If you ride less, are less aggressive, or lighter, expect 2-3 years. On the other hand, if you are 'expert', heavy, and ride few days per week, you will need 2-3 bikes per year. Although all bikes can be kept running for many years, after these times cracked frames, worn out clutches, bearings etc will need replacement as the bikes are becoming 'tired all over'. Something to ponder. The factory Honda engines would have had at least 30K spent on each of them. A garden variety 4 stroke engine is cheap, a refined one very expensive. I have no doubt they are expensive. By comparison, Adam Raga's engine will be very close in cost to a stock engine. 2 strokes are very cheap to modify, 4 strokes extremely expensive. Toni Bou's bike would cost many times what Adam Raga's bike costs. If the FIM was even slightly serious about fixing some of the equality problems at the highest level in trials, they would introduce 'production based' rules like are used in AMA motocross. In AMA motocross, prescribed parts such as frames must be standard production items. They even have claiming rules, to stop the factories spending too much on their race bikes. The overall benefit is that production bikes get improved more frequently, and a privateer can build a competitive bike. The problem is, however, that Honda are clearly 'pulling many of the strings' in WTC. A production rule would mean that Honda would need to make a competitive bike at a competitive price, which they can't.