ridgrunr

I appreciate all of your insights. I've never seen the Sherco 4T yet, but we've got a few 4RT Montesa's in the club so I've been studying them too. Not excited about the loudness. I wish it looked as compact and as well finished as the Sherco does. That bulby gas tank along with all of those tubes and the coil hanging out there on the side of the frame remind me of a Harley..."oh yeah we forgot that...well let's just bolt it there" and tell them it's retro. Then there's that muffler. Why does it look like it belongs on a Peterbilt? And they're might proud of that 4RT at $7400 and you don't even get a headlight. I see Beta and Scorpa have 4 strokes out now too, but don't know much about them either. Maybe a good time to buy the last of the 2 strokes before they are gone? Fortunately I've got a few months before I'll be buying anything, so I'm going to do some serious research before I fork out the cash for anything, but if the 4 strokes don't pan out, I'm leaning towards the 290 2T. I've always wanted to try one of those Shercos, just because of the terrific clutch.

Ok, the GAS GAS is gone. Man I Loved that 321, but it's time to move on and I've been looking at all the makes. I've owned 3 GAS GAS's and they have their pros (pun intended) and cons, but I'm really drawn to the Sherco 290. That said, 4 strokes seem to be the rage of the future, so I'm wondering whether to get one of the last of the 2 strokes or make the plunge to the thumpers. I know Montesa has defeated the 4 stroke lag problem on the 4RT with the fuel injection scenario, but I'm not sure I'm ready for that sort of complexity involving something that I can't work on, but I can work on carbs. So I'm intrigued by the 320 4T Sherco since it has a carb. But how does it deal with the four stroke lag problem? Anyone ridden one of the 320's yet that can give me some insight as to whether or not Sherco was able to get it right with the 320 4T? How's it compare to the 290?

The WTA went AMA last year. We balked for years, but finally couldn't find any private insurance, even with no claims since 1973. So we bit the bullet and became AMA sanctioned. What's changed. Riders have to pay $40 to join AMA to ride. That discourages the guy a little who just wants to try it, but usually they still do cause we let first time riders ride for $5, plus all first time riders take home a medal. They don't think it's too expensive considering they paid $50 bucks for each moto they rode last Sunday and got to ride for fifteen minutes and blew up their bike and the kid broke his collar bone. The $45 it cost them to ride Trials all day is a lot less than the Moto Cross, they go home with bikes and bones intact so the cost doesn't seem as much. Then for the rest of the year they get to ride for $15. Their kids get to ride for $10. What a deal. I get a bad magazine I don't need. I wish they'd use the money it costs to print that rag to further motorcycle causes or maybe lower the AMA fees. If I want to read about bikes, I go on-line or buy a Cycle World or a Dirt Bike. You do get a membership discount for stuff you buy at on-line places like Bike Bandit.com. I paid for my AMA fees with discounts savings I got on stuff for my V65 Sabre and my Brute Force quad. Our club is actually floating in money. We've never had so much money as we were paying $2400 a year for pretty much nothing. Now all we need is about ten riders at a meet to break even. We usually have three to four times that so finances aren't critical anymore. Land owners are happy when we tell them we're insured by the AMA. We can afford to pay the BLM permit fees. We have no regrets.

Hey guys, been gone for a week snorkeling in the Keys. It was great and we just missed Alberto! Lots of discussion on the class thing. Let's not give up now as we are almost there! I'm thinking it's time we bit the bullet and just admitted that at some time in everyone's Trials career...everyone is a Beginner and start there. None of us were born with these bikes glued to our feet. So if that is the case, and building on Alan's ideas, we have: 1 Champ...You know who these guys are. Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound types. 2 Expert...Able to conquer large steps and obstacles, understanding use of suspension, throttle and clutch to overcome difficult situations. Usually have superior balance and confidence. Do not need obvious dabs and can confidently navigate difficult terrain and plan for unforseen events. Often the top class in most clubs. Able to compete in ES or E lines at an NATC national. 3 Advanced...Experienced rider with good bike control. Knows the basics and can use them. Not so scared of obstacles that don't have dabs available. Able to execute some advanced trials manuevers, floater turns, hops, zaps etc. Able to control both ends of the bike. Could succesfully complete a NATC national in the sportsman line. 4 Intermediate...Middle of the road kind of guy, many club riders ride this class. Usually experienced and understands basic technique abilities with decent balance, brake, throttle and clutch control. Usually knows where his front wheel needs to be and can put it there, but usually hopes the rear wheel just keeps up. Can do whelies, but probably doesn't trick ride. Obstacles are getting larger and can usually accomplish double blips, suspension loading, full lock turns and such as needed. Should ensure there is at least a dab on one side most of the time. 5 Novice...Probably the adult, experienced dirtbike rider, beginner class. Understands necessity to stand up and has basic control of brakes, clutch and throttle, but not much understanding of basic techniques. Can do mild obstacles but still need plenty of setup and runout room with secure dabs on both sides. Sections need to be fun but not scary as this is the class where we get them hooked for life. 6 Beginner... Very first time riders and probably kids who probably don't have much control of the bike. Probably aren't comfortable standing on the pegs yet. These folks obstacles consist of very small logs and obstacles generally under 12' or so, lots of tight turns, no clutch and little front brake if any is usually needed to negotioate their sections. There is plenty of runout room and care is taken to avoid placing them in situations that if they "freeze" on the controls, they would not be in trouble. What do ya think? I just don't know how we can make it any simpler or usable. Florin

Champion Expert Advanced Clubman Intermediate Novice Now that's an interesting lineup. 5 Basic classes with an (optional?) top Champ class. I never did like the idea of 7 classes, but it was sounding like some folks were thinking there was too much of a jump between classes with just 5. In this lineup, the middle class would be Clubman class which is usually the meat and potatoes of any club. I like it. As far as the NATC goes, they have said themselves their only focus is the National series. They've never been involved in anything on the club level and have no plans to ever do so. I doubt they will help push or promote anything like this which is unfortuante because it would only help their cause too as both are tied together and both are floundering.

Organizing and stardardizing the sport is important. It's the #1 thing we need to do to get the sport of Motorcycle Trials legitimacy. We need to think outside (or maybe get inside) the box depending on how you look at it. #1. Forget the NATC. They do national competition only and have no interest in the club level. #2. There are very few "Champ" riders. It's an exclusive term for top level riders. Let's not use the term on the club level. #3. The term "Sportsman" causes a lot of confusion. Some clubs have it as a lower level class and some have it as an upper lever class. Plus, I believe it's a National level class term? Too confusing. So maybe we should not use it at all for the club level. #3. Intermediate means Middle, so no matter how many classes there are, the Intermediate should be the "middle" class. #4. From a Trials Marshal standpoint(the guys actually setting the meets, which I've done since 1990), the more classes you have, the harder the task gets. So KISS is the operative word here. #4. We need terms that can relate to section difficulty. How about this? Master (top riders if a club has them. We have Cory Pincock for instance) Expert Advanced Intermediate Clubman Novice Junior (kids under 12?) This fits in with the idea of needing to be at least an "upper" class rider to compete on the National (NATC) level and removes the confusing Sportsman term. A club could still have sub classes such as "Senior Advanced", but these could be the 7 base classes. Lets not try to eat the elephant whole. One piece at a time. Lets get the class terms decided, then we can work on the rules.

We've tried to do this for years. I can remember Don Williams talking about the need for this clear back when we used to write for FEET UP! magazine. The sport will always be an "oddity" as described by the rest of the motorcycle community, until we become united and organized as a national group. In reality this needs to be done not only nation wide, but world wide. But I always get the old "this is the way we've always done it, and it works for us so we're not changing" story. Mighty short sighted and self centered if you ask me. No matter what the class designators would be, they need to have some description of class difficulty. Intermediate needs to be in the middle as "Intermediate" means "middle". That also means an odd number of classes to be able to have one in the middle. 3 is too little with too big of jumps between classes and I think 7 is too many. Seven splits in a secion is way confusing. 5 is about right so that you don't have mass confusion. So say you had 5 basic classes with Intermediate being middle. Could look like this: 5. Expert 4. Advanced 3. Intermediate 2. Sportsman (or whatever you wanted to call it) 1. Novice I don't think the term "beginner" should be used as an adult dirt bike rider who tries the sport for the first time won't ride "beginger". It's the old "I've been riding Moto-cross for ten years so I'm no Beginner" ego thing. So he rides the second class, gets killed and never comes back. "Amature" should also not be used, because on the club level we are all Amatures and it confuses the issue having two classes that start with "A". At both ends of the spectrum, if a club had riders to warrant the class, a club could have a "kids" class (kids on small, not full sized bikes) and a Champ class (National Champ class caliber riders). But not every club has Champ riders so here's no sense in making them have a Champ class. BUT they would have the option to do so. A club could also have subgroups such as "senior" riders (for instance riders over 40), but they would be tied to the 5 basic classes and ride the same line as the basic class, such as Senior Advanced, Senior Intermediate, etc. This system makes it really easy for a Trials Marshal to designate lines on Split plates too. You simply have a split plate with E-- A-- --I --S --N lined up on it, then the Trials Marshal marks a thick black line to either side of the letter which designates which side of the split marker the class is supposed to go. If a split marker is not intended for a class at all that class designator is simply blacked out. You get used to looking for your class designator as it's always in the same place on the split card with the same identifier. Florin

Should be a tube front and tubeless rear.

I've got a 99 TXT321 that I bought new and a factory manual and GAS GAS maintenance video. If there's any info you need, let me know.

If I remember right, the yellow was the stock spring, and the red was a stiffer spring. Lot's of guys changed the springs out back then, thinking the stock ones were too light.

Yup, if it's in decent shape you can't go wrong. I love my 321 too. The 2001 probably had the best suspension of the bunch. Mine's a '99. There's really not any weak spots. They pretty much had them figured out by 2001. A decent 2001 could probably go for anywhere between $1800 and $2600.

Man I loved my 94 249cc KRoo. Probably my most favorite bike, even if it was a little heavy and tall. Stupid horizontal radiator and fan. An idea that wasn't needed and didn't work too well. But that had to be the best motor ever put in a Trials bike. Tons of power, more than my GG321, but was tunable for smoothness and power delivery by advancing or retarding the timing and easily adding flywheel weights. If only the thing hadn't been so tall, but then with all that ground clearance it would roll over almost anything. I think it had some of the best suspension ever put on a Trials bike too, lots of travel, but I wasn't a fan of that upside down fork and it's always broken fender braces. I'd sure buy another Fantic if they'd build one again. I loved both my 309 and my KRoo. Wasn't a fan of the 95 Section.

Question: When you are experiencing this stiction are you bouncing the front end while holding the front brake? If you are, that put's a bind on the forks as the wheel is not able to rotate as it needs to when the fork geometry angles change. Try bouncing the forks without holding the front brake. If the stiction problem disappears you may have found that you don't have a problem at all. If you still have a sticion problem while not holding the front brake, your forks are probably out of alignment. If you still have the problem, take off the fork brace and fender and then check for stiction. After you have the brace off, make sure everythingis aligned then see if the brace still fits. If it doesn't it's probably tweaked. I've seen bent fork braces that cause the forks to not be parallel. You may have to bend the fork brace back to original position if it's bent and is causing the problem.

Trials bikes make the best trail bikes. We do a lot of trial riding, on some serious terrain like the Five Miles of Hell. Riding a Trials bike trail riding is like riding a F-16 when the guys on the dirt bikes are driving DC-3's. They actually take less punishment because they are designed for rough terrain and are so maneuverable. Not to say that you want to take one out and try to run wide open in high gear all day. That probably wouldn't be good. The main problem is not sitting down and fuel. Some guys have made bigger seats. We solve the fuel problem by carrying 2 liters of fuel in a 2 liter plastic pop bottle in a back pack. They don't take up much room and fit fine in most hydration packs like Camel Baks, and are about indestructable in case you should fall on it. Then when they are empty you can crush them and they take up even less room.

Good solid bike. Lots of power. Can be bears to start if you are a light weight. They can kick back too.

Can't say the 95 Sucked. He just went over the bars alot, which he didn't do on his 94. Don't know why. They were set up the same. They changed the frame geometry between 94 and 95, and I think again between 96 and 97 then slightly for the 98. When he sold the 95 and bought the 99, the problem ended. The 95 GG350 was a beast. That's the white tank one. Gobs of power, but one of the hardest starting (kicking) machines I've ever seen. If you got that thing at TDC and tried to kick it, you could stand on that kick starter all day and never get it to go down. That thing would kick back sometimes and about break your leg. The 97's were probably the best of the JTR series. They were the last with the plastic tank, and the ones we've had in the club have been great bikes. Heck a kid from Loa named Mike Peterson still dominates the Expert class on his '97 270 even against all the new bikes. In 98 they went to the Aluminum tanks on the TX, and the frames changed again. In 99 the TXT's came out which I think were the best cause they changed the frame for 2000 and it wasn't as good. Personally, like I said, I think the 321's were the better motors. The 2001 321 was probably the best handling of all of them, but I think the 99 turns better. Then in 2002 they went to the Pro which had problems. I've got pics of all the GG's (and the other bikes for that matter)on my web site http://www.geocites.com/utahtrials. Just scroll down to the "pictures of the bikes" section and you can see what they all looked like.

I'm a big fan of the late 90's GG's. The 94's had frame cracking problems. A buddy had a 96 and it had handling issues. Never seen a guy go over the bars so much. The pre '97s have plastic gas tanks. The 97-2001 TXT's had the aluminum tanks. I have a 99 TXT321 and 2000 TXT280. The 98's and '99's (First year of the 321) were the best of the bunch cause they were tougher. In 2000 GG went to a redesigned rear subframe which carried into 2001. The 99 rear subframe was metal and provided support for both the rear fender and the air filter. The rear subframe after 99 was actually just the air filter box. It doesn't hold up real well. In 2000 they changed the rear shock too of which I know of 4 shock failures, ours included. We put a Pro shock on the 2000 280 and haven't had any other problems. In 2001 GG put a new fork on the TXT line. You can tell the difference when you look at the fork brace. Pre 2001 was a curved unit basically clamped to the forks. In 2001 with the new fork the brace is flat bolted to the new fork. I do think the 2001 fork may have been superior to the previous forks. The 2000 and on TXT's have a different rear fender with a high profile bend so it looks like it has more travel, but they don't, they just stick up higher in the air is all. The 321 is a better engine for the average rider than the 280. The 321 is smoother and more tractable. If you are a rider who likes a little more explosive power delivery, the 280 would probably be better. Both 280 and 321 are pretty tunable for power delivery by retarding or advancing the timing. The 99 321 is also one of the best turners. I can usually gain a lot of points by being able to make full lock turns the other guys can't make. Good thing it turns, cause I've never had so much as one hop in me. The TXT line is a little heavier than the Pro line, but the bikes are much more durable. I'm not sure I buy into this lighter is better thing. There's a point of diminshing returns such as reliability, durability and just being able to hold a line and not get knocked around so easily. Not sure where that line is, but we have to be getting close. The Pros start looking pretty ratty after a couple of years of use. Disposable bikes now days I guess. My 99 321 has competed in meets slmost every month since I got it and is still plenty competitive. Plus it's one of the best trail bikes ever made. Across the Five Miles of Hell I can pretty much put it in 3rd gear and forget about it. My son has seriously used the 2000 280 in the Advanced class, and although it has a few dents and dings, it still runs great and is a very solid ride, and he's ridden it very hard. So far, I haven't ridden a single bike that I'd buy to replace my '99 321, and I've ridden most of them. I do like the 290 Shercos which would probably be my second choice. The 300 Pro's are probably my 3rd choice, but like I said I'm concerned about their durability. I don't care for the Montesas or Betas because I'm not a fan of Aluminum frames. Been there done that with a Beta Zero. Probaby won't again. I like the TXT's too because they are easy to work on if you need to. Other than routine maintenance, they are pretty bullet proof. Heck you can change the spark plug with a crescent wrench between sections if you need to, but if you run a platinum Bosch plug you won't have to worry about that. Run Maxima lite transmission fluid(I think it's 75 wt)in the tranny which pretty much eliminates any clutch drag. I have had neoprene fork boots on my 321 since the day I got it and it still has the original fork seals in it. They have never leaked a drop. I change the fork fluid every year, ATF. I did put a set of rings in my 321 two years ago because I thought it was getting a little noisy, but I didn't need to. As you can see, I keep my bikes for awhile. Heck my 1985 Honda v65 Sabre has 52,000 miles on it and I can't find anything that I'd buy to replace it either. I just wish I could make that 321 dance like Mark Manniko did in the Nationals back in 99. Watching him ride his 321 was why I bought mine, and I've never regretted it. Hope this helps. My .02 cents anyway.

No sweat Brian. I knew what you were trying to say, and I'm with you. My focus is on the foundation of the sport here...the clubs. I truly wish that folks did care more about was going on in both the Nat'l and the world trials scene, but I've discovered as I go to the meets and talk to the guys in the trenches that isn't the case. The lack of total sport enthusiasm is what's missing. My 19 year old son loves to ride, but hasn't got a clue what's happening on either the Nat'l or World scene. What's worse, he doesn't care, and that scares me for the future of the sport. If we can't get those 19 year old excited who's going to run the clubs and keep the sport alive when us old guys can't start those bikes any more? I love to watch the world guys, but what they do, and what's happening on the world scene is far removed from what we do as clubs and club riders. It's like they are two different sports, and I guess in reality they are.

We can't all go the route Geoff Aaron picks. I'll be the 5% bracket thank you very much. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Two responces. I stand corrected. It's .5%

I've waded through all of these posts and I'm pretty sure I'm an IRC man from here on out. I think what we seem to not underdstand is that your average club rider...read that as 95% of the riders in the U.S. don't really care if the U.S. ever competes on a world level...at least in the format that Trials is today. Most of them have never heard of most of the top world riders or who rides what for who. Maybe a few have, but not very many. Same half dozen guys have made all the posts here, except for Mich Lin who has muddied the water so much that nobody know shat he's trying to say. You want to get the next generation excited, make the sport into something that will exite them. Or we can leave it like it is...just like your Dad's Oldsmobile. And we all know what happened to Oldsmobile.

Aw geeze Sendero! Now I'm going to have to live up to that hype when I set the meet here for September 23.

I do appreciate all your responses guys. The more I think about it, the more I know you are right, it's too complicated. Gotta keep it simple. Heck, Trials riders can't even count to 5...1,2,3,5. I do like the idea of self scoring that some of you advised. Sure wouldn't be any worse than what we are doing now. Thanks for your input!

I do appreciate all your responses guys. The more I think about it, the more I know you are right, it's too complicated. Gotta keep it simple. Heck, Trials riders can't even count to 5...1,2,3,5. I do like the idea of self scoring that some of you advised. Sure wouldn't be any worse than what we are doing now. Thanks for your input! I think I still like this part though: Scoring could be further streamlined by not having each rider carry a score card that the scorer would have to punch. Instead, each rider would be assigned a number as they sign up. A 3X5 card with their number and class letter would be taped to their number plate. 28A would indicate rider #28 who rides the Advanced lines. 16N would indicate rider #16 who rides the Novice lines. This would help the scorer know what line the rider is going to ride, and which rider to mark the score for. The scorers would have a sheet with three columns, and 32 numbered lines (32 riders). As each rider comes through his section, the scorer simply writes down the score the rider got on each loop instead of having to chase down the rider so he could punch the riders card. This would save a lot of time running around by both rider and scorer.

No disrespect to msj239 or anyone else who has responded to this, but I dissagree on both cases. #1 We went AMA in the Wasatch Trials Association (http://www.geocities.com/utahtrials) last year, and the costs for our club insurance went way down from the private insurance we had been using, but were no longer able to get. We are required to have insurance to be able to have the meets we hold on BLM land. If we had not been able to get AMA insurance, the WTA would be history. We looked everywhere. Nobody will risk insurance on any OHV competition. Because of the AMA we are still able to exist. Also, as an AMA member I get a discount on every road bike and ATV part I buy from company's like Bikebandit.com. I easily made back the AMA fees from last year on those discounts. #2 Nobody knows what the rules are. Every club in the U.S. is "doing their own thing" when it comes to rules, scoring, and classes. There is no agreement on any of these items and nobody knows what the rules, scoring or classes are. We are all fumbling around arguing that our way is better than your way. I wish I had a buck for every time someone has said, "we've always done it this way, and it works just fine so we're not going to change." That's one of the ideals that has held Trials back as a whole for years. It's like when the movement came a few years ago to call the sport MotoTrials. Everyone was up in arms about changing the sanctity of the sport. Bunk. Ask someone on the street what trials is and they'll tell you all about ENRON, Michael Jackson and OJ. Trials has to change to survive. Some folks may think their club is all healthy and going good, and if it is it's because there's been a core of guys who have worked hard for thirty years at it. But those clubs are no bigger than they were thirty years ago. Most are smaller. Problem is, those guys are getting old. Some can't even ride anymore and us old guys can't keep running these clubs forever. As a sport, we are going to have to change and adapt and come together as a group if we are going to entice new riders to come into the sport who can and are willing to carry on when we pass on the torch. Without some sort of guidelines to follow and entities who they can call on for help and advice, they will fail as they do not have the experience that we have to draw on. This means the clubs will fail. We need a foundation to build on. That's what trials lacks in the U.S.A. We need some guidelines so that when someone says, "Rider A is the #1 Advanced rider in our club and won the class last week," that will actually have meaning to rider B and C as they'll have some frame of reference to make a judgement by. The lastest issue of Cycle World has a neat write up on the new Scorpa 175 fourstoke. It's a good write up on a neat bike, but the more important part of the story is the editorial of why Trials never became the "next big thing" even though it has been posed to do so off and on for the last thirty five years. As it states in the editorial, we have been and continue to be our own worst enemies because we are so focused on our own little slice of the pie that we can't see that the rest of the pie is rotting. It's obvious to them. They see it. Why can't we? The USMTA is an idea for ideas that has been proposed before. It's an idea that we all better get behind or our sport will continue to be the oddity that the rest of the motorcyle world still considers us to be, even after almost forty years of trying to convince them of how much fun it is. Sign me up. Florin Owens

I believe that's a crankcase drain, in case you should ever drop the bike and fill it full of water. You can pull that bolt and drain the water out of the crank. I think the 97 was the last one to have one.