bikerpet

Great to hear you're getting back to it, you'll love it - it's a sport that gets better as you age. Or so I'll maintain. Don't buy a yellow and blue Sherco with the rear fuel tank - what a dreadful piece of machinery that was! Cracking frames, steering stops that didn't so the frame tubes got crushed, QA the Chinese would be proud of. There was almost nothing nicely made on them. Rode Ok when it was running. They were around 2013. Totally put me off Sherco frankly, I plan on never owning another. The Betas are really solid. Well made, very few serial issues although just check the particular year you're interested in. Great turning circle, somewhat mellow engine response compared to some bikes which is probably going to be helpful. I've had a couple and couldn't really fault them. They just work, and keep on working. Rear mudguards are expensive and some people find them fragile. I replaced the steel bolts with nylon bolts or cable ties and never damaged a guard in around 700 hours of crashing. The front mudguards have a plastic bridge which is guaranteed to fail but a GasGas guard & bridge fits. GasGas are a bit of a perennial favourite for a lot of people, but I've always been a bit nervous as they age. The gearboxes are very elegant, but tend toward a little delicate as far as I'm concerned. Lovely clutches though, and the rest of the bike seems good. I was always a little nervous about the relatively exposed radiator - I could see myself chucking it onto something hard and destroying it. Most other brands moved to a radiator protected within the frame some time ago. Last one I had was a 2007 so pretty out of date info perhaps. I've just moved from Beta to TRS and am very impressed with both the build and the ride, but they are getting a bit too recent for your aim. With the exception of the yellow peril I'd probably just say go with the lowest hour bike you can find. They all have some "personality" but the number of hours on the bike is the biggest differentiator in my opinion.

Is that the front bolt you're talking about? Do you put anything in the back holes that come with plastic Scrivets? And is it proven to pop off when crashed? Thanks.

Ah the cynicism. Ride a good MTB from just a few years ago then hop on a current model and you'll find there's more than gimmickry involved. Yes, almost every company selling something resorts to gimmickry, trials is no exception. But that doesn't preclude real technical development.

Any info on the flywheel proto kit? Self-made? Purchased? Pictures? It's something I'd be interested in trying.

I've been setting up my newly acquired 2021 TRS One RR 300 to my personal preferences and am left wondering about the rear mudguard and airbox. I've read a few threads where people have cracked airboxes after looping the bike. On most of my previous bikes I've modified the rear guard fitments so the rear guard can pop off the bike without breaking anything other than fasteners in a crash. I setup a Sherco with magnetic connectors which were pretty cool - the guard would just reseat itself after a crash and I'd carry on, sometimes without even realising it had popped off. On my Betas I taped the airbox cover closed so I could remove that bolt, replaced the mudguard bolts with nylon bolts (or cable ties at the rear) and trimmed the "hook" on the guard so it could pop off when the guard was distorted far enough (usually a bit after the rear bolts/cable-ties failed). Never damaged a Beta guard with these mods despite a good number of crashes onto the rear. I'm wondering if anyone has modified the "hook" on the TRS guard? How much needs to be removed, and where, to let it release before any damage to guard or airbox is done? It seems to be extremely secure the way it comes - too secure by the look of it and the reports of broken airboxes.

Well I'm now in a position to start answering my own question. I just acquired a 2021 One RR 300 with low hours. Only had one real ride with it so far, but I'll start with with that. The front definitely feels lighter. Makes it very noticeably easier to hop. Feels like there is considerably less rotating mass in the engine. It picks up RPM significantly quicker, and also loses it faster so doesn't carry up things unless you wind it up a bit more. The quick acceleration has seen me lose traction more often than I would on the Beta, but I'm pretty sure I'll adjust fairly quickly and that will go away. It's a strange thing, but the lighter front doesn't translate into a heavier rear. It actually feels a bit more sensitive to body weight to the rear to get traction. It makes me concentrate on better posture which could be good long term perhaps. EDIT: after a few hours on it I'll revise this - it's actually easier to find traction on the TRS. Suspension is a step up, although this is comparing an RR to a standard Evo so not entirely apples and apples. That said, my Beta has a TRP rear shock that was a significant step up from the standard shock. The TRS is big step up from the standard Beta rear. Brakes are considerably sharper than the Beta Grimeca. Taking a bit of getting used to as I didn't have a problem with the Beta brakes (except losing the rear on very long steep downhills - never did get that entirely solved). Clutch is nice. I need more time to really get the feel of it, but first sensations are that it is easier to work in the slip zone. I'm not sure that the lever movement is any bigger, but it just feels easier to modulate the slip. The body work is bulkier above the pegs, makes the bike feel fatter and a bit less movement across the bike. Don't notice it too much when riding but it's quite noticeable when I first get on. It's harder to kick than the 2020 Beta 300, similar to the 2017 Beta 300. Overall it feels more lively - hops easier, accelerates quicker, generally just feels a bit lighter and quicker to respond all round. I'd say that it's probably a bit less forgiving than the Beta. So far I'm very happy with the move to TRS. I like the feel of it and everything I've looked at (I spent about 6 hours prepping it before I rode) is nicely built. I'm looking forward to getting onto some loose stuff to see how I find that, and also to getting confident enough on it to tackle some of my hardest obstacles to see if it makes me look better 😄 EDIT: after 9 hours on it I'm starting to get comfortable with the TRS. And loving it! I'm riding noticeably better doing things on the back wheel, stationary zaps and hopping. The clutch is snappy but so consistent and easy to find the right amount of slip. It's definitely more responsive than the Beta which is good, but could be bad. I think the Beta is a bit more forgiving. The TRS could certainly get out of hand much faster if you're not on it. The Beta feels a bit more solid on the ground, but the TRS is easier to move about, hop, zap etc. I definitely feel like the Beta has more flywheel inertia, so it revs up a bit slower and tractors on up things more easily, it also tends to be more stall-resistant. That slightly slower response makes it less of a handful if you're a bit less than accurate on clutch and throttle. The TRS just feels more like a highly strung race horse. Remember this is a standard Beta EVO vs a TRS RR, I don't know how the RR would compare to the EVO Factory as I've never ridden one.

Just read the FIM rules again - that's it, only chin guards made by the manufacturer of the helmet in question may be used. So if the Euro ECE std. is acceptable (it is in Australia) then the Arai with chin bar is legal in trials. Tempting, but the minimal venting and additional weight over the Airoh put me off a bit.

I believe FIM rules outlaw the Arai chinguard - I remember reading something in there about "no removable chinguards" - I could well be wrong, I often am, but that's what I recall. Possibly Japan National comps run to their own somewhat modified rules, as many countries do, and this permits the removable Arai guard. This could explain why you don't see Arai chinguards on the top level Japanese riders who also want to ride FIM events? Personally I find the idea of an MTB DH helmet style chinguard very appealing. If you've ever put one on you'll be fully aware that the "vision" argument is a total non-starter! My main motivation is to avoid potential dental work - it doesn't take much of an impact to snap a tooth which becomes expensive and potentially a long term problem. I've often considered wearing an MTB helmet. I'm sure their protection is adequate for the sort of impacts I'm likely to experience. In fact I rather suspect that with MIPS they may well provide better protection in some crashes than most or even all MC helmets in the same situation. Certainly I think the bicycle standard is designed more around the speed and type of impacts we're likely to experience than the standard MC standards that are predominantly designed around high speed impacts onto hard surfaces. The issue that stops me is that I frequently travel on public land and I really don't need to add another potential reason for Mr Plod to decide to ping me with a fine rather than have a friendly chat. Also the MTB helmet wouldn't be legal for comps and I'd prefer to ride in the same lid in practice as I'll use at an event. I find it most amusing how some people get all of a fluster when there's even the vaguest possibility that their "individual rights" might be limited in some way. Yet as has been mentioned, when various limitations to their freedom to inflict unnecessary pain and suffering is actually imposed most people fairly quickly accept and even embrace it. Oh if only we could all still drive 1950's era cars with no seat belts, airbags, collapsible steering columns, crush zones, soft interior impact surfaces, stability control, ABS. Oh and of course I'd like them to have the modern levels of performance without all that unnecessary, legislated reduction on my individual rights. ROFL.

Nice thread. Thanks for taking the time and sharing your experience. When building bicycle wheels you definitely bring the spokes up to tension progressively, adjusting offset, lateral and radial trueness as you go. The few M/C wheels I've built I've done the same and had no issues. I had to replace a single Morad rear spoke today and struggled! I really didn't want to have to loosen everything up and have to adjust offset again so I just threaded the nipple onto the outer spoke until I could force the inner spoke into the end of the nipple. Then I backed off the nipple as far as I was brave enough too (hoping I wasn't damaging the inner end threads as they pressed into each other), then tightened it up. It worked, although the nipple is very close to bottoming out on the outer spoke threads. If anyone has a better way to reasonably quickly replace an outer spoke I'd be interested to hear it! I'm glad I didn't break the inner spoke, that must be a nightmare to replace!

I am happy with the Beta brakes mostly - no problem at all with the front, the back fails after long steep downhills but comes back quickly. No amount of bleeding seems to change that. No big deal as I'm aware of it. So I'll be intrigued to ride a bike with even sharper front brakes. Interesting you find the Beta easier to static balance, that's an area I need all the help I can get. I'd definitely recommend the TRP, they work extremely well. The difference was very significant from the stock shock and was plug-and-play. No more hard bottoming, more compliant feel ... Excellent value I reckon. Go easy fella! I'm not ready for an old-man button yet. :-) I'd seen the TRS thread and the water pump issues - that does bother me a little, but it seems some bikes have it some don't and it isn't a huge job to change seals so I guess I can live with it. The light front is interesting, I'd not heard that before. Air filter seems unnecessarily irritating, but I've seen the little plastic spring holder thingy which seems to make changes easier. When you say they stall, do you mean they stall easily at low rpm, or do they just stop for unknown reasons? I see they've made the flywheel heavier on the '23 model, maybe that's to help solve that issue? So if the TRS does most things better than a Beta why would you buy the Beta again? Is it just because of the light front? Or is it the sum of the light front, the water pump, the air filter & the stalling? The thing that most concerns me at present is that in the advrider thread there was a post showing a spilt front engine mount - right across the crankcase. There was a comment that was a known issue, which suggests it's not ridiculously uncommon although I haven't found another reference to the same issue. That does really concern me. I see the '22 (or was it '23?) they talked about improved crankcase manufacture and heat treatment, which supports the idea that there might have been a problem when the new cases where introduced on the '21. So far that's the only thing that really makes me nervous. It's hard to go past Beta for solid reliability and ease of maintenance - the EVO has been around long enough that all the gremlins have been worked out. Of course I'm sure some of the newer designs have improved on various areas (I hear TRS linkages are much easier to service, but I doubt it's a major time saver for a non-professional mechanic like me). But lots of people comment on the quality of TRS.

I'm looking at a used 2021 RR 300 and just wondering if there are any serial issues with this model? I see that there were a few changes to the 2022 model: New steering angle New sump guard rubber Improved airbox New regulator connector New exhaust support New shock ball joint Updated crankcases Revised flywheel And again for the 2023 model: New swingarm New sump guard Improved airbox (again) Improved chain tensioner New CDI mapping I don't know if any of these are particularly significant, but the crankcase sounds like it could be, it seems like the cast crankcase was new for '21 and a revision in '22 sounds like there might have been problems. Thanks

I've been riding Beta for a few years now, 2017 300 for 3-400 hours and now a 2020 for another 360 hours. Prior to that I had a 2015 (I think it was) Sherco 290 (disliked that one) and before that a 2007 GasGas 250 (which I still have but haven't ridden for ages). I'm thinking about stepping onto a TRS RR 300 but it would be a step into the unknown as I have never ridden one and don't know anyone within 300km with one I could borrow. I'm OK with that - there's no "bad" bikes out there these days so I'm comfortable buying one un-ridden - it'll be trials bike, all good. What I'd like to hear is some comments about how the two bikes, Beta 300 (not factory) and TRRS RR 300 feel compared to each other. The subjective "feels like it holds turns better", "feels easier to hop", "more aggressive throttle", etc. Background Rider - I ride Trial 3 in Australia (Trial 1 being the expert/pro class), not particularly well. I'm 60 & still improving my riding slowly, but recognise my improvement on harder obstacles is going to get capped by advancing age in the not too far distant future. I'd like a bike that will help take me as far as I can go. I'll never ride above T3. I don't need a 300, but I like their tractorability down low and don't have any issue with the power of the 300 Beta. I compete for fun, and challenge - I really don't care where my results are as long as I've had a good challenging but enjoyable ride and learnt something new. And haven't hurt myself! Beta - I'm pretty happy with it - it just goes without any drama. Starts easily every time, things don't break on them and because they've been around in pretty much the same form for years they are pretty well sorted. The clutch might not be the best in the pack, but I haven't had a problem with either of mine. I quite like the slightly more rearward peg position of the Beta, but no big deal. I've upgraded the rear shock to a TRP which I'm very happy with. TRRS - is a more recent design, a better clutch, better suspension. They seem to be pretty reliable and well built, which is important to me - I put around 300 hours a year on my bike & I don't want to be constantly adjusting and fixing things. I hear the engines are pretty snappy - I'm OK with that, but do wonder if it's going to be a hindrance. I also hear the suspension works very well, which is perhaps the weakest point of the Beta. Thanks

I don't think power is so much the problem for "average riders" on a 300. The problem is: 1. that near vertical torque curve off the bottom 2. the 6 or 8 kg of flywheel that just tractors on. People get into grief when the bike accelerates away and then even if they cut the throttle it just keeps going on the flywheel - whiskey throttle but compounded by the fact that even if you chop the throttle the power on the tyre remains. The only way to cut the power is with the clutch. The problem is really inadequate clutch control combined with the absolute tractor power of the 300's with their big flywheels. It's interesting that one of the typical "solutions" for people wanting to tame a 300 is to put on flywheel weights. I guess that slows down the acceleration so the bike feels "tamer", but the downside must be that if it gets away without pulling clutch then it's going to be like a bulldozer - nothing's going to stop it! If you compare a trials bike revving up to an enduro bike it's chalk and cheese - the trials bike takes several seconds to wind up and down (winding down from high revs takes ages - you usually drag clutch against brake to decelerate it quicker) because of the flywheel, while the enduros are way more on - off. That on-off characteristic means you can achieve much more effective control with throttle, that's just not an option on a 300 trials bike. I don't think most people coming into trials really recognise just how big a factor the heavy flywheel on a trials bike is. So many moves are made with no throttle at all, just flywheel inertia, therefore HP is often almost completely irrelevant in those moves, it just means it takes a little longer to spin the flywheel up to speed. Of course there are also times you need sustained engine power, no doubt. Look at the really good 125cc riders, it's incredible what they can send those things up with a fraction of the power of a 300, they just store power in the flywheel for when they need it. Flywheel energy goes up by the square of RPM, so a relatively light 125 flywheel can still store a heap of energy as they tend to rev a bit faster. My 2c

If you want to really build skills you really need to spend some time on focused practice - that goes for anything you want to learn, not just trials. Figure 8's are a key to developing good slow speed balance and control. Arms pretty much straight, bike tipped into the turn against your inside leg, outside knee out wide and weight well back and to the outside. Hours of fun getting that dialled! Another one is just dropping rocks, cones, whatever randomly on the ground and ride turning through them without running them over. All the fancy techniques rely on good basic balance and accuracy positioning the bike, so you can never go wrong working on the basics of turning and balancing. I am a huge fan of Neil Price's online coaching (neilprice.com). It's not free, but a year's subscription is probably just a few hours of face-to-face coaching. He will guide you through the basics, answer questions, give super accurate feedback on what you're doing (you post videos and he posts reply videos). You can also do internet calls with him and discuss what you're doing. You also get to discuss stuff with others in the coaching group, if nothing else that can help your motivation when things aren't progressing as well as you'd like. It's absolute gold for anyone trying to build skills without a handy local club nearby. Yes, I'm a fan. And no I've got no commercial affiliation, just a super impressed user of his platform.

Awesome looking riding area! I wish I had something like that available. I'd possibly suggest altering your goal a little. Forget the stop and go technique for a bit and just learn to ride that terrain accurately and continuously. Stopping and balancing is useful, but not as useful as actually making progress through the section. If you ever get the chance to watch some of the older ex-guns ride you'll see how they make it look OH-so-easy just rolling along, while the youngsters with the hop-and-pop do no better but look to be working far harder. Of course when it gets up into the higher grades it's pretty much impossible to get through without all the hop-and-pop, but that's a very long way from your first days, weeks, months or even years! One of the big keys to riding stuff like that is being able to put your wheels exactly where you want them, stopping and balancing makes that harder unless you're well advanced. Putting your wheels where you want includes lifting the front and popping it down precisely on the rock you're aiming for.

I've now edited the original post to reflect my understanding that it was my own incorrect installation tooling and technique that is the root cause of this failure. I hang my head in shame. I wont say that this in any way reflects on the underlying quality of the kit - it may be perfect or it may be rubbish. All I know is that my installation damaged the bearing shells, which caused the failure of the rollers.

I posted this in the General Forum, but thought I might link it in here as it is also specific to Beta. I had a complete failure of a recently installed All-Balls linkage kit in my Evo. Originally I thought it was due to poor quality bearings however I'm now left wondering if installation tools and technique wasn't at least partly to blame.

I have now joined the common population. It surprises me that otherwise reputable stores would sell such rubbish.

Updated and Edited. I've left in but struck out comments that I believe are unfair. Final conclusion - installer error. 50 hours ago (actually more like 40) I replaced my 350 hour old OEM Beta Evo linkage bearings with an All Balls kit. Suffice to say that you get what you pay for, or less. Today I pulled the linkage apart for a 50 hour service and found every roller in every bearing has lost an end guide tit. The resulting mess of debris and ground up metallic paste seized some bearings and badly wore others. What absolute rubbish! A total waste of time, effort and money. BUYER BEWARE! These things are totally unfit for purpose. Below is a photo of a typical roller and the mess of broken steel and steel-paste I recovered with a magnet out of the solvent. EDIT: I did some research looking for alternative bearings available locally and came across a Timken document (same image also in the Koyo document) which shows the design of a press tool for this type of bearing. Note the bevel on the pressing flange. This would ensure the face of the bearing is not deflected down onto the roller ends. On a caged bearing such as the OEM ones this probably isn't too important as the rollers don't extend into that part of the housing, but on a full complement bearing like the All-Balls this could be a problem. My press tool has a flat face beyond the pilot spigot. The Timken PDF also stated, "The bearing should be installed with the stamped end (the end with the identification markings) against the angled shoulder of the pressing tool.". I'm guessing this to be because the stamped end has not been thinned during the shell drawing process, so is sturdier. I didn't pay attention to which end of the bearing I was pressing against. I recovered the bearing shells from the bin and looked at them with a magnifying glass. Every bearing had signs of deformation on one end or the other, some on both (presumably from install/dismantle). It is very obvious when you look for it why you should only ever press the flat, stamped end! So I now put this failure down to my own mistakes and ignorance. Needless to say, I'll be modifying my press tool and paying attention to the stamped bearing end in future! In defence of All-Balls I'd say that I really like that they supply full-complement roller bearings, I think this is probably a better style of bearing for the high load/low rotation application in the linkage than the commonly available & OEM caged style. The bearing they use appears to be a clone of the Koyo 15BM2112 full complement drawn cup needle roller bearing. So in summary, beware that these bearings might need very particular care when installing, might be poor quality or perhaps both.

I've never used it personally, but quite a few Australian clubs use the system from https://trialsport.com.au/ From an output perspective it works well: Typically Australian events use rider-carried cards for each lap. Carry your own card, observer punches each section (often orienteering style punches with a different hole shape for each section), card is handed in at the end of each lap and next lap card is given to rider. Sometimes the score is just blacked out with a marker pen - most commonly when rider-observation is used (ie another rider observes and scores and you reciprocate). I think that is different to many places where the observer keeps a sheet for all riders for their section? I spent a bit of time looking into using an OMR (Optical Mark Recognition) to scan lap cards. There were 1 or 2 systems that could possibly do it but most are structured for marking exams, which is somewhat different to just pulling in data. The biggest stumbling block was going to be dealing with cards with dirt & mud splattered over them - relatively easy for a human, but far harder for software! Where I am we punch out the numbers, so potentially using a backlit scanner could overcome that issue but then there's the case when the punch hasn't taken out the entire hole and so closes back over when scanned. In the end I decided it was looking all too flaky. The transponder type systems would be terrific when there's mobile signal, but certainly for us there are many events in locations with limited or no coverage. I think waiting until the end of the event for any results to come in would not be well received. I did wonder about a hybrid system where Observers use an app and transponders (Generic NFC cards are cheap as chips) to score and an official, or even riders, travel around the loop with a reader app. The reader polls all the observer devices for their data and collects it, then it's all periodically updated in the central scoring system for semi-live progress results. No need for mobile signal, just use bluetooth between the two devices as they come in range.

But then here in Australia our local police have told kids who were going round and round their garden and p****** off the neighbours to just "disappear out into the bush where you're not annoying anyone". Illegal on multiple counts, but sensible given the alternatives. All comes down to the copper doing the catching in the end.

I'm not sure if the OP got what they wanted from this thread? I'm not sure I see very clear answers to the original question. My general guide is this: Top of the reservoir cap pretty close to horizontal, maybe just very slightly sloping down. Generally I have the lever set in as far as it goes toward the handlebar bend. The pros have it much further out so the action is fast, but for mortals like me subtle control is far more useful than speed. Also the pros ride A LOT so their clutch fingers are probably much stronger. There's a little bit of a trade-off when you come to fine adjust the reach and bite point; sometimes right in toward the bend results in the reach too far out or the bite too far in. Compromise as best you can. Lever stop so the lever sits comfortably in the last joint of whichever finger you prefer. Further out will fatigue you or encourage you to take your finger off. Further in uses up precious travel. Right around the bite point I try to have the middle section of my finger roughly perpendicular to the first section (first being closest to my wrist). The rationale is that this is around where you get the best strength/control balance. Usually the clutch only just comes completely free (ie I can roll the bike backwards while balanced on the pegs) when I've got the lever hard on my closed knuckles. A tiny weeny bit of drag when I'm not hard on the knuckles doesn't bother me at all. I don't like silicone lever grippers on gloves because that part of the finger has to slide smoothly over the lever as it moves in & out. Some aren't so grippy as to be a problem, some I just peel off. As for which finger - no opinion. I use the index. Can't imagine trying to change to the middle. But either obviously work for different people. I'd always default to suggesting the index, but if it feels weird then by all means change.

As Lineaway also said, the roll-up in it's various forms covers 90%+ of what most people ride. Certainly this is what Neil reinforces in the online coaching. There's a recent short Pat Smage video, "Just Hit it With the Front Wheel, It'll Go" - if that's somewhere close to the limits of the zap then I can't see myself ever being limited! That's a bigger obstacle than I'm likely to tackle any time soon. I've seen what I think you're referring to as Ryan's "bucking bronco" technique. I'd have to say it seems a bit left field to me, I don't see too many people actually using it at any level of competition. I've assumed it was a bit of an exercise to develop some skill or other rather than a technique to be honed and used - apparently not.

I don't quite follow that. If the roll-up covers 90%, and the RSG roll-up covers 98% of obstacles, why would you learn a double blip as the basic move to get over something? Why not just learn roll-ups and then get good at them? A roll-up also includes touching the front wheel on the way up or clearing the front wheel, so you can always start to learn wheel placement accuracy and timing via the roll-up, preferably with RSG so the lift is done with clutch more than throttle. Personally my experience is that my zaps improved out of sight once I got the double blip out of the picture and concentrated on getting RSG throttle/clutch/timing sorted out better. I think dbl blip actually confused the issue by encouraging the front wheel to land too high for a good zap and relying too much on throttle, not developing clutch/throttle timing enough.

Yes, I tend to agree a little about the weekly videos, a fair bit of friendly conversation in there. I think (guessing) they are primarily aimed at people who use Neil's face-to-face or online coaching, certainly they come across best when you've watched a series of them and you start to see the common threads. RSG is just a gem I reckon - it's amazing how hard it is to be absolutely accurate with it, but as it gets better so much else comes along with it. As you say, filming yourself and editing it down for delivery is of itself really valuable I've found. Sometimes I end up not even posting it for Neil to comment on because by the time I've watched it a few times and scrolled back and forth I can see what I need to do anyway! But when I do post something then inevitably the response is clear, simple and usually comes back to building basic skills. The other big advantage of the online thing you've also alluded to - it's delivered consistently over an extended time, and you can always go back and look at previous comments and guidance. Being able to do that helps avoid the issue of latching onto just one thing and forgetting the rest.