bikerpet

For some time now I've been getting professional coaching (do it!) which has changed my perspective on the double blip. Now I see 3 fundamental techniques for obstacles: Ride up, Zap, Splatter. Ride is anything where the rear tyre drives all the way up. It doesn't matter if the front wheel clears, glances or hits the obstacle, it's all still the same basic technique. So a double blip is just a minor variation of the Ride. With this idea in your head it all becomes much simpler and puts more focus on where the real action is, the back wheel. I think @lineaway said something along these lines ages ago, that the DBL blip was a historical technique, a hangover from twinshock era. Don't get me wrong, there's still a call for DBL blip, and the ability to accurately place the front is important but the whole DBL blip is only as important as lofting the front clear or letting it skim the obstacle. Actually getting over the obstacle depends entirely on how you drive the rear into and up the obstacle, not what the front wheel does. If you take a look for "Neil Price Mind over Matter" you'll get the pro explanation rather than my amateur interpretation.

@ken_hosking I think I disagree that the clutch can't move in the basket when it's engaged. The plates all bind up together but the whole cluster of plates and pressure plates is still somewhat free from the the basket. Any tolerance (slop) between plate splines and basket splines still exists. The plates are bound up with the hub because it's all part of the pressure plates, but the basket isn't part of the pressure plate system. The basket is just sitting on the bearings free to do it's thing. It's only when the bike is in gear that the output gear exerts significant resistance to the hub and therefore drags it all back against the fingers of the plates.So I still think the noise is just the whole mass of plates, pressure plates, springs etc clattering about inside the basket (or the basket bouncing around over the plate assembly). At higher RPM either oil and bearing drag etc provides enough drag that it all sits tight against the basket fingers or the mass of plates etc. simply can't resonate at the higher frequency, or both. Also at idle a single cylinder two stroke RPM is bouncing around like nobody's business, so the basket is always being accelerated and decelerated as the engine pulses and surges, while the plates etc are acting like a flywheel inside the basket. Constantly a different speed between the two. Take a look at the pic here to see the exploded clutch assembly - the only bit missing is the output shaft which runs through the middle into the hub. You can see that the two pressure plates and all clutch plates are completely free from the basket except for the splines, and the splines have bucket loads of free play in them (in the scheme of manufacturing tolerances), I'm guessing there's probably something in the order of 0.2mm free play between basket and plate splines - that's more than enough slop to cause a ruckus! It's presumably not a big deal - the driven side of the basket fingers are always the ones that wear and cause issues, if it was caused by the plates banging about at idle I'd expect both sides of the fingers to be similarly knocked about, which they never are.

I've always figured the noise comes from the engaged "block" of plates slopping back and forth in the basket, which pulses with the piston. When you pull the lever the plates have less combined inertia (they then effectively form two blocks with a degree of slip) so the rattle is reduced. When you give it a few revs the frequency of the piston pulse is simply way higher than the frequency the block of plates can move at, so the rattle disappears. Probably viscous drag from the oil and other friction also works to keep the plates anchored against the basket fingers at higher revs. No empirical data to back that up though. A wrap of tape on the basket fingers would probably be a quick and dirty way to prove it out, if only for a very short time! If it's the fingers then it should go quiet, if it's the gears it will remain.

I too have terminal DIY, however sometimes I just have to relent and roll over. Most rubber contact adhesives work best if you apply pressure, hence why I used to build resole presses. I've yet to find a consumer grade cement that really works for the job, and have to admit that even some of the cobblers I've used in the past don't seem to use anything much better. One adhesive which I find pretty close to miraculous is Aqua-Seal, it's a urethane adhesive used for sealing wetsuits, tents etc. Similar in appearance to ShoeGoo but vastly superior in my experience. There's another brand sold as Seam-Grip which seems similar but I've less experience with it. One of those might do the trick? Whatever you use I think it needs to remain highly flexible after it cures. Good luck.

That would explain it. Certainly makes a big difference. Looking at the parts list numbers it appears the cylinder changed in 2019. Thanks, I'm happy to have that mystery solved. You'd think Beta would have talked it up a bit more really.

I just made a little video comparing turning over the two bikes. Big difference! But I'm not really sure how either of them compare to other people's Evo's. The '17 had the head & cylinder off about 100 hours ago and was in perfect condition. It doesn't seem to have changed in compression or performance since then. Vimeo kicking over video

As far as I know. But it really doesn't seem like an inertia thing - it's just much easier to prod over at any speed. Maybe I'll take a peak to be sure. Potentially I need to pull the head off and take a look inside I guess, reluctant to do that on a bike I've only had one day though!

I've just picked up a 2020 Evo 300 to replace my 2017 Beta 300. Generally feels pretty much the same (but shinier!) with the notable exception of starting. The new bike is vastly easier to kick over. On the '17 I had to get right up over the starter and give a really solid kick to spin it over consistently. Any sort of half hearted stab and it would usually laugh at me. On the '20 I can give the most mediocre stab on the lever and it spins right over. I'm left wondering if they changed the starter ratios or if the engine has lost compression. I looked up the part numbers and there's only one difference, but I've no idea if it's significant: 007.03.439.80.00 PRIMARY DRIVE WITH CUP (2020 model) 007.03.435.80.00 PRIMARY DRIVE WITH CUP (2017 model) So have the ratios changed (seems unlikely given only one component has changed) or is my engine low on compression? Thanks

I use a cobbler. My experience is that there isn't a readily available consumer adhesive that really does the job for resoling, I've tried a few and they've all been less than stellar. Many years ago I designed and built presses for professional re-soling of climbing shoes. The choice of adhesive then was conveyor belt adhesive. You might be able to cadge some of that from a nearby conveyor supplier if you live near an industrial area. Failing that I'd find a reputable cobbler who has worked with hiking and/or moto boots.

A while back I decided to try fitting a pre-filter to my bike. I had a piece of 25mm thick coarse reticulated foam (ebay fish tank filter foam) that I'd tried to use as a baffle as described somewhere for SSDT prep - that never really seemed to do much so I thought I'd try a different approach for my drier conditions. I cut the foam down to 6-8mm thick and cut a few pieces shaped to fit under the filter clamp. Oiled and fitted. Works a treat! I check it fairly frequently and swap out when it gets grubby. The main filter stays far cleaner and swapping, cleaning and oiling the pre-filters is much quicker and easier than the main filters, and the piece of foam that cost just a few dollars will make a bunch of pre-filters so I can keep several prepped and ready. I can't feel any difference in the way the bike runs or rides. The one below was let go longer than I usually leave them.

Another happy customer. I pulled the plates out of my 2017 EVO 300 - it had always been OK (not fabulous, but OK) but recently started to hang on when the lever was pulled. About 250 hours on it and the plates had about 0.1mm wear on them. Decided only the two outer plates needed glue removal. Ground a hobby knife chisel blade so it was a neat fit between the friction pads then a quick job to slice out the glue. Quick (careful) cleanup with a thin brass brush in a dremel on low speed to get the loose bits out. Touched up the tabs with a fine needle file and put it all back. Smooth as a baby's bottom! Clicks between gears far more nicely, clutch releases predictably and faster. EDIT. I spoke too soon. First few hours were great. Now it's gone back to hanging on for a moment after the lever is pulled. Oh well. When I next get too irritated with it I guess it's going to be a careful look at the basket and maybe a touch up - there was slight wear but it didn't feel too significant, I guess I underestimated.

I've got a pair of Sidi Trial Zero's that have seen one re-sole and are coming due for their second. The uppers are still going strong but the soles wear through at the pegs far too quickly as far as I'm concerned so I'm not going to put on another pair of Sidi soles. Does anyone have any feedback about durability of Forma or Gaerne soles? My other option is to see about getting them soled with Vibram Boulder or Claw rubber - that's pretty tempting as you pretty much know what you're getting with Vibram soles!

Sidi update and re-sole question here. I've been patching up the resoled Sidi soles with ShoeGoo which has extended their life. The uppers remain in excellent condition for the amount of time they have on them I reckon I'm looking at putting a third sole onto these soon and am going to try another brand sole. I'm hoping to find something more durable than the original Sidi. Any suggestions? I can get Hebo, Forma and Gaerne soles pretty easily. The Forma are cheapest which is appealing, but not if they don't last. The cost of the resole is more than any of the replacement soles. Any suggestions for a nice durable sole?

And if you think you can, ride with conviction.

I think we're now saying the same thing. That's pretty much what I updated my definitions to I think. But I did take the "on top" pretty literally as that was what you said the videos were saying. I had an hour or so riding until I got too hot today. I even made a slight improvement to my zaps - hooray.

Seems like my definitions need refining then. I'm still not at all convinced about the zap needing to land on top. "Near the top" is not the same as "on top" and I've hunted around on YouTube and found various videos of zaps (by very good riders) where they land the rear tyre significantly below the top. I reckon the critical thing is that you're trying to generate lift and get the wheel to land high up on the object. How high up depends on your goal (a slippery log might require it to land right on top, a grippy rock could land much lower). At some point the zap will fail because there simply isn't enough forward momentum to pin the tyre to the obstacle long & hard enough to get it to climb the remaining distance, at this point a Splat might be more appropriate. So the Zap must include jumping the rear wheel high onto the obstacle. I still can't quite come at a clutchless zap, although I can accept that skilled riders can lift the rear wheel pretty high with just two throttle blips and excellent timing - Heck, Toni Bou can "zap" higher than I can get even close to with his engine completely off! I reckon that all falls into the "blended" basket, a blend of blip & splat. That probably comes from my tendency to break things down into building blocks for learning and progression. The Double Blip - I think you're quite right that the blip is a "drive the wheel in and roll up" technique, so that's got to be part of the definition. Perhaps there's a "Basic Dbl Blip" with no clutch and a more advanced one with the clutch? But neither have the goal of jumping the rear wheel (although this often happens a little with strong blips). Roll-up - accelerate the rear wheel into the obstacle, then let inertia carry the bike up. The front wheel either rolls up, is lofted above the obstacle or touches the obstacle on the way up. There is only a single blip of the throttle (or clutch dump). Double blip - Two distinct "Blips", either throttle alone or with clutch dump. First one lifts the front wheel, second occurs when the front wheel impacts the obstacle. The rear wheel is driven into the obstacle causing it to climb up. Zap - Land the front wheel onto the face of the obstacle, compressing suspension. Clutch dump and jump to lift the rear wheel high onto the obstacle. Splat - jump the bike, landing directly on the face of the obstacle rear wheel first, using the traction gained to climb the remainder. If you take these 4 as a sort of linear Venn diagram then there'll be areas where they intersect as one technique blends into another. So a Double Blip might use a bit of clutch and jump like a zap, but it's still primarily a roll-up type technique. A Zap might be really strong so the rear wheel smacks hard into the obstacle somewhere up the face and uses the traction gained to get the rest of the way up just like a splatter, but if the front wheel hits the obstacle first then it's always a zap, not a splatter. Now to go out and ride.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txObLiiRAZE https://youtu.be/EQUKvFvmosI I reckon the Double Blip exists and is a specific technique. I'm certainly not going to say Ryan and Jordi are wrong, that would be pretty stupid, but I know from years of teaching complex skills (I taught skiing around the world for many years) that often it's necessary to "abbreviate" explanations for the sake of brevity and understanding of the goal at hand. Perhaps it's just quicker, simpler and clearer to say "land the wheel on top" to give people a clear understanding of the goal? For the most part I suspect that's accurate - if you can land the wheel on top, a zap will get you there nicely, if you can't get to the top maybe a splatter is more appropriate. But what happens if you try a zap and don't get as much lift as hoped and you land a bit low? It's still quite possible to get to the top - does that mean that your failed zap is now a splat? No, they're distinctly different techniques. If the zap developed for undercuts, is it still a zap if you do it on something you could roll-up? I say it is. For the double blip it's similar I think, but as Lineaway said modern bikes let us blur the distinctions pretty easily. If a roll-up is a simply driving the rear wheel in, then I guess a Double Blip is a roll-up, so is a rev & drop the clutch and so is wheelie-ing into an obstacle. But they are different techniques. I don't say this just to split hairs, I think it's fundamental - a technique is what you do, not the result you're after. The definition of "technique" is a way of carrying out a particular task or a particular method of doing an activity. So the end result is not a technique - different techniques can be applied to get to the same end result. Therefore a Double Blip is not the same as a single-blip roll-up, and a "clutchless zap" is not the same as a clutched zap even though they have similarities and share the same end result (I don't think a clutchless zap will get me far though). So I still see: Roll-up - single throttle Double Blip - two throttles Zap - two throttles, with clutch (or two clutches) Splatter - single clutch/throttle, landing directly on the obstacle rear wheel first. Roll-up through Zap provide a nice progression of developing skills leading into each other, developing throttle, clutch and timing as things progress. Splatter uses the same skill set, but the big difference is possibly sheer bravery to hurl the bike at an immovable object and hope you neither loop out nor slam into it face first!

Of course, but that doesn't mean there aren't specific techniques that use combinations in particular ways. Agreed. Sure, but we humans move one foot in front of the other at different speeds. It's a heck of a lot easier to say "walk", "jog" or "run" than describe exactly what you mean (what are the critical differences between walk and run - that'll be a good long sentence at least). When we come to something more complex like coordinating throttle, clutch & weighting, terminology properly used can save an enormous amount of confusion. There's no way Raga & Bou think about doing a "blip", "zap" or "splat", they just do what they know they need to. But for us bumblers we need to have some idea of how to put together combinations of inputs in a sensible way to get a reasonable output. If you want to jump the rear wheel cleanly onto the top of a knee high obstacle what do you do? I'll bet it'll likely look rather like a zap, but I'll also bet it's going to be much clearer to say "zap" than describe the whole sequence, as long as everyone understands the term similarly. It's definitely mostly about learning and sharing knowledge - we all mix and match combinations of actions when we ride, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. It's only when we come to talk about it that we need language and words to describe things, and language is nothing if not shared agreement on what words mean. No question to me - it's a roll up. When you actually arrive at the obstacle you're rolling up it. You haven't launched the bike at it airborne, and you haven't used the obstacle to alter the way the bike is responding. Also quite clear to me - It's a zap. Because you use the combination of loading the suspension on the obstacle and a clutch dump. You can't clutch dump without giving some throttle so that's more or less irrelevant, you could get the same result by just holding the throttle open and slipping the clutch between the the front wheel lift and the second clutch dump - would that be a single blip or still a zap? Exactly. Time and again in these and other forums things go off on tangents while people come to agreement (or disagreement) on what technique's being talked about. That's why I've proposed a sticky in the Technique thread so it's easy to refer to and everyone can move on. This thread would have 5 or 6 less posts if we all called the same combination of actions the same thing!

I'm going to take the liberty of posting my definitions as a starting point: Roll-up - accelerate before the obstacle then roll off the throttle as the bike arrives at or climbs it. Flywheel inertia carries the bike over, hence "roll"-up. Variations include lifting the front wheel and touching the front wheel high on the obstacle. Double Blip - blip throttle to lift front wheel, when it hits obstacle second blip to drive the rear wheel in to the obstacle. Zap - Lift front wheel (either blip or a bit of clutch), when it hits obstacle clutch dump (combined with building revs prior) to snap the bike up and get extra rear wheel lift. Splat(ter) - Aggressive acceleration, usually with clutch dump but not necessarily, to launch the rear wheel directly into the obstacle. May involve a kicker or not.

Throughout this and other threads there are innumerable discussions about various techniques and manoeuvres that digress into discussion/argument about exactly what's what, sometimes degenerating into completely unnecessary vitriol, or sometimes just becoming a confusing mismatch of terminology. I haven't found any definitive "Trials Dictionary" either here or elsewhere online. Perhaps a sticky could be put here with broadly agreed definitions of eg. Roll-up Double Blip Zap Splatter etc Each should have all the commonly used terms worldwide (or at least in the english language as that's the default here) ie Zap, Jap Zap, Zap Zap are all used interchangeably in various parts of the world, similarly Splatter, Splat etc. If there are any areas that overlap then that can be explained in the Sticky - eg "Eastern Zulu Tribesmen refer to the Roll-up interchangeably with the Double Blip" If such a thing already exists perhaps a sticky linking to it would be all that's needed. Obviously we'd need to get agreed definitions, probably needs a bit of recognition that those with the most experience and the highest skills carry more weight than others, but no reason anyone couldn't participate. Suggestions should ideally include brief reasoning behind it - ie Double Blip does not use clutch, just two bursts of the throttle (ref Ryan Young https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj48DkxZRaM) A sticky with that info could save a lot of pointless semantic argument and give beginners a clear place to start to get their terminology clear. Really it should be pretty straightforward to throw together. Just needs the key differences that delineate one technique/manoeuvre from others. I'd suggest starting with the roll-up and building from there, one definition at a time. Once there are these 4 or 5 definitions agreed then a Sticky goes up (whoever can do that). Any takers?

Great, thanks. I think we'll have to disagree on the definitions. I'll stick with my definition of: Double Blip - blip throttle to lift front wheel, when it hits obstacle second blip to drive the rear wheel in to the obstacle. Zap - Lift front wheel (either blip or a bit of clutch), when it hits obstacle clutch dump (combined with building revs prior) to snap the bike up and get extra rear wheel lift. Splat(ter) - Aggressive acceleration, usually with clutch dump but not necessarily, to launch the rear wheel directly into the obstacle. May involve a kicker or not. These fit a multitude of situations and have clear points of difference. Look at lineway's son in the photo he just posted - no kicker but assuming the front tyre never hit, that's a splatter by anyone's assessment surely? Plenty of the indoor trials obstacles require huge splat(ter)s off a smooth stadium floor, so there's certainly no requirement for a kicker of any sort. Some of the really big splatters happen at pretty high speed, so I doubt there's much if any clutch involved - that's not something I have any intention of finding out for myself! My personal analysis of the zap vs blip is that the zap gets so much more lift for two main reasons: The extremely fast acceleration of the bike from the clutch dump with the front wheel compressed against the obstacle causes it to very rapidly rotate which results in the forward mass (front wheel, forks, engine) accelerating almost vertically - this gives some good vertical momentum to help carry the bike that direction. With the throttle snapped closed, as soon as the rear wheel has accelerated to the speed of the flywheel the tension drops off the chain, allowing the rear suspension to extend and help spring the bike up (the front suspension is doing the same as the bike rotates up away from the obstacle). The blip uses the same compression of the front forks and resulting rotation of the bike, but without the fast acceleration it has much less result, and using engine acceleration to drive forward means the chain isn't going to drop tension so the rear suspension can't extend as freely. This also helps explain why you have to contact the obstacle below the top (something I know I'm not good at) - so the front of the bike gets forced up when it's driven forwards. Maybe if you drove into the obstacle quite fast you'd get a bigger lift as the bike rapidly rotated up - another thing I'm not sure I'll be doing any personal research on! A good discussion anyway.

Nice! Maybe when I get to his age I'll be doing that too. No, wait, that was decades ago. Oh well.?

Thanks for picking up that error in my writing - corrected. Perhaps I should have included roll-up's kissing the front in this video. I just wish I had the skills of Jimmy, Pat and the others who make such good teaching videos so I could actually demonstrate effectively. If they would only put cameras on their bars like this then I certainly wouldn't bother doing it myself! So often I watch the videos and just can't see accurately what's going on with throttle and clutch timing, and if you don't know what you're trying to do with throttle and clutch then what hope have you got? So much of it is about accurate timing of the weighting, unweighting, clutch & throttle, "almost right" is about as effective as "completely wrong" in my experience! I'm afraid that leaves me somewhat confused (more so than usual anyway). Jimmy's videos are excellent, certainly among the best series I've seen (and I've wasted way too much time on YouTube watching trials!). The trouble comes with some of the translations, as in this video. The first demo. says "Zap / Touch Front", the second says "Double Blip / Zap". They are clearly different, otherwise he wouldn't make two demo's, so why are they both labelled Zap? If we're going to have two different techniques with the same name we might as well just call everything "riding". I would call the first a Double Blip / Touch Front and the second a Zap as there is clearly use of the clutch to launch the bike after the front wheel hits. When we come to Splats I don't understand what you mean by, "Your splats are a zap without touching the obstacle."? My understanding is that if the front wheel doesn't touch, then it's not a Zap. In my demo there is a rock being used as a kicker, and the back wheel lands on the obstacle - so why is it not a Splat, albeit not a startlingly good one? I'd add that a kicker is not requirement for a splat as Jimmy shows in technique 4. You could Splat with or without the clutch, the key as I understand it is launching the rear tyre airborne directly into the obstacle without touching the front tyre. If there's a word or term, there's a definition. So what's your definition of Double Blip, Zap and Splat(ter)? That might help clear things up. I've asked Jimmy Ertzer if he'd mind setting up bar-cams and making videos - that would be an excellent outcome!

For a bit of fun I made a video of Double Blip, Zap & Splat on the same obstacle with the 2 bar-cams (throttle cam is a bit better since I rubber mounted it). I've posted the link to the video in new thread. If nothing else it should clarify my (mis?) understanding of the three. Definitely not something to watch to learn technique, but maybe it's useful as an explanation at least of what I understand (right or wrong).