paioli Posted June 2, 2007 Report Share Posted June 2, 2007 Well that was a good party political broadcast, I though rappers wrote entries not applicants for the novagars Were sometimes undersubscribed, or our we only thinking what people maybe are thinking?????, and as for all the cannot ignore bit when deciding which round gets to go in the series well I think it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dale Posted June 2, 2007 Report Share Posted June 2, 2007 in the end its down to the clubs to get the sections right for the classic bikes first and foremost ! i also ride the wye valley series , two routes ,10 classes,no problems,great trials maybe they should be running a classic round,they seem to know what there doing and have a large classic following, unlike some clubs that i suspect have a large modern bike membership,hence the leaning to more modern bike friendly sections,and modern marking! Totally agree !! Well set out trials and well run too,See you on the 24th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john collins Posted June 4, 2007 Report Share Posted June 4, 2007 I will make my comments on the present Clasic & Novogar Championships in the next few days. To Paioli - I never learnt a tremendous amount in school - but I did actually learn to read Rappers comment was : It Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paioli Posted June 4, 2007 Report Share Posted June 4, 2007 to John Collins- glad to here you went to school ,learnt to read and have a simple mind ,your words not mine ! Rappers DID NOT write, only a few clubs apply for novagar rounds, those are, your words not his ! MAYBE what rappers is implying is that the novagars are unpopular with some clubs because they only have one route,which has dicussion on record in earlier forums ! And maybe whats being suggested is the modern bikes in the classic series are taken into the novagars,with a second route for the o/40 championship ? And maybe whats being suggested is the classic series needs to be for,and set out for,classic bikes with a second route for clubman on classic bikes ? With no major sponsor for the classic series calling the shots surely we can get it right for all the riders and not only a few ! classic has two s's not one ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorpa3 Posted June 4, 2007 Report Share Posted June 4, 2007 Come on gents, lets not turn this into a 'who said what' argument. The important thing is that we recognise the issues being made and search for any sensible outcomes. I've made my feelings clear on the matter, so I won't go into my preferences again. John is the best placed person to react to any suggestions, he knows only too well the difficulties both riders, organisers and the ACU ALL face when sorting out the many different championships and rules which each aspect of the sport require. I personally believe that John will progress our thoughts/concerns in the best and most appropriate way.... not just for us (the outspoken ones) but for trials in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paioli Posted June 5, 2007 Report Share Posted June 5, 2007 and obviously there's the big money sponsor and his riders to keep happy, allegedly ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kawahonkabsa Posted June 5, 2007 Report Share Posted June 5, 2007 Hi all, I just started trials this year, 79 Bultaco, and did a mixed, old and modern,trial this weekend. It was a bit dis-heartening to see the young lads (i'm 56) leaping around up sand filled gullies and mounting 2 ft steps after a vicious turn which i had no chance of doing (yet). so much so some of the lads on pre 65 's went home at halftime My point is let the beginner get the occasional clean it does wonders but a day full of 3's and 5's can set him back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old trials fanatic Posted June 5, 2007 Report Share Posted June 5, 2007 Hi all,I just started trials this year, 79 Bultaco, and did a mixed, old and modern,trial this weekend. It was a bit dis-heartening to see the young lads (i'm 56) leaping around up sand filled gullies and mounting 2 ft steps after a vicious turn which i had no chance of doing (yet). so much so some of the lads on pre 65 's went home at halftime My point is let the beginner get the occasional clean it does wonders but a day full of 3's and 5's can set him back. Which is why IMHO Classic bikes and moderns do not and will never mix. What a shame that the two local Classic only Clubs in my area are going through such difficulties finding people to officiate and help out. Moral is either choose your events more carefully or take up enduro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bilco Posted June 5, 2007 Report Share Posted June 5, 2007 (edited) Hi all,I just started trials this year, 79 Bultaco, and did a mixed, old and modern,trial this weekend. It was a bit dis-heartening to see the young lads (i'm 56) leaping around up sand filled gullies and mounting 2 ft steps after a vicious turn which i had no chance of doing (yet). so much so some of the lads on pre 65 's went home at halftime My point is let the beginner get the occasional clean it does wonders but a day full of 3's and 5's can set him back. Moral is either choose your events more carefully or take up enduro You've hit the nail on the head there. If trial's was ever cheap for the clubman it's not now because you have to do the distance to ride a quality trial, Edited June 9, 2007 by bilco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dale Posted June 7, 2007 Report Share Posted June 7, 2007 Hi all,I just started trials this year, 79 Bultaco, and did a mixed, old and modern,trial this weekend. It was a bit dis-heartening to see the young lads (i'm 56) leaping around up sand filled gullies and mounting 2 ft steps after a vicious turn which i had no chance of doing (yet). so much so some of the lads on pre 65 's went home at halftime My point is let the beginner get the occasional clean it does wonders but a day full of 3's and 5's can set him back. As i said in my earlier posts - set the sections for the bikes the trial is aimed at eg Classic - Twinshock - Modern, then if anyone rides say - a mono at a classic trial and finds it too easy,he wont be back p****** the classic boys off and vice-versa.Happy Trials Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john collins Posted June 7, 2007 Report Share Posted June 7, 2007 I did say that whenever we start discussing one particular series there is often a tendency to divert off and bring in another. Sometimes this has merit, but other times can just confuse the situation, and often here are quite a lot of things that have to be taken into account. I do think this may well be the case in trying to link in potential changes to say the Novogar, in order to perhaps improve the Classic. One thing is absolutely certain in my mind, and that is whichever way you move on any particular Championship there will be opinion for and opinion against. Also Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorpa3 Posted June 7, 2007 Report Share Posted June 7, 2007 John, Thank you once again for your detailed and informative response. We run a Miller round which, thankfully is fairly popular, modern bikes are welcome but for a no award basis. "Please do come along for a ride but it will be very easy, remember this is a classic trial!!" I take on board your comments concerning a second route at Novogar rounds. As an orgainsing club in this years championship, we tried very hard to get the severity of the single route just right. Indeed, Lee Sampson won the Colmore - as a clubman rider - on just four marks lost, the top 24 riders lost less than 50. There were only 24 riders on 100+ from the 73 finishers. I think we got it about right, perhaps more by luck than judgement as the weather was apalling. It is likely that we would welcome a B route - but only providing that the A route stays the same severity as now. We don't need or want to make the sections any harder but I belive an easier route would attract a good following. That said, you are right in as much as - if the main route is correct for clubmen then it should be right for the over 40's. So I suppose that shoots down my own argument for an easier route? Looking back over the last few years when the Colmore was not a Novogar round, the entries dropped off. Allocating us a round in the championship solved this problem and entries jumped back up. For us, the championship tag is well worth having. And we are most grateful for this. Pete Barnett Stratford-Upon-Avon MC&LCC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmyl Posted June 8, 2007 Report Share Posted June 8, 2007 Fair play to JC, nobody can I think acuse the ACU of trying not to be responsive. I guess it is impossible to please all the people all the time and peoples opinions will vary depending on where they are looking from. I think so long as organisers are made clear up front of what trial they are expexted to put on under any paticular championship banner and the ACU stewards reports considers if this was achieved as part of his remit and clubs are then advised if they got it right, too easy or too hard then things should work ok. (feed back is a wonderfull thing in helping to achieve what yoiu are after) I think the ACU should actively keep an overview on the severity of all championships and should act sooner rather than later if they see things drifting from what is required. As C Of C for the St Davids I had a figure in my own mind as to what the winners should be dropping (we have JC on board any way) but nowhere is this set out as a clear objective, a guidline on severity would be usefull I believe at all levels as specially for multi round championship being organised by a variety of clubs and people.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorpa3 Posted June 8, 2007 Report Share Posted June 8, 2007 Fair play to JC, nobody can I think acuse the ACU of trying not to be responsive. I guess it is impossible to please all the people all the time and peoples opinions will vary depending on where they are looking from. I think so long as organisers are made clear up front of what trial they are expexted to put on under any paticular championship banner and the ACU stewards reports considers if this was achieved as part of his remit and clubs are then advised if they got it right, too easy or too hard then things should work ok. (feed back is a wonderfull thing in helping to achieve what yoiu are after) I think the ACU should actively keep an overview on the severity of all championships and should act sooner rather than later if they see things drifting from what is required. As C Of C for the St Davids I had a figure in my own mind as to what the winners should be dropping (we have JC on board any way) but nowhere is this set out as a clear objective, a guidline on severity would be usefull I believe at all levels as specially for multi round championship being organised by a variety of clubs and people.. Yes, setting out a championsip round is always going to be a 'balancing act' with the severity. It is so tempting to look at the entry list and set out the trial for the best riders entered and forget the needs of the majority. Cater for the majority and there is a chance that the top riders willall go clean. Look at our own Sam Cooper Union Jack this year, the majority had a fabulous event, the only trouble was that it worked out too easy and every class (apart fro the chairs) was won on clean. Luckily we got away with it because there is a timed special test tie breaker section. Modern bike events rarely have this luxury, so the Clerk of the Course is under a lot of pressure to get the result. I think easy trials are more popular and get better entries but it does make it harder to get a result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody Posted June 9, 2007 Report Share Posted June 9, 2007 Referencing John's post and a couple of points about the ACU Classic series. The point about dwindling entries and why the series needed propping up in the first place with the non pre65/twinshock classes - I've said this before and also in my previous post in this topic but it always goes unacknowledged in any further discussion for some reason - maybe as there's no-one else on here who remembers. The series was well supported and doing fine under initially the sebac, then falcon titles using 2 routes for pre65 and twinshock classes only. It was only when it was changed to a single route mid 90s that entries began dwindling. I can remember Neath holding a round but by then entries were already dropping off and some events cancelled. It was at this stage that the series was combined with sidecar rounds and had other classes added. This obviously wasn't ideal but at least it kept alive a National championship for pre65/twinshock classes for a small bunch of enthusiasts who still travelled to all the rounds and which thankfuly retained some of the best events from the original series - Bootle, Welsh Trophy (Rhayader run version) Congleton, Hillsborough. The sections in these trials were still of the standard that you would expect from a National championship but by now there was only one route - some riders coming to test the water may have found it a bit hard so a number drifted in and out of the series but the regulars trooped on and supported it. The new trials introduced to the calendar were the sidecar rounds, DK Mansell, Hooper, Doncaster Cup, West of England, Presidents Cup, Peak. Of these, only the Mansell and Hooper gave the sort of challenge required, the others were too easy and didn't warrant the travelling cost to be honest. It's only recently that a couple of other good events, solo only, have been introduced, Lancs County and Torridge (reintroduced actually, in this case) When it was 2 routes and pre65/twinshock only, all the rounds were worth travelling to and some good ones have been lost over the years - Scarborough, Rochdale, Congleton, Guisborough, Pontypool - quality events that people travelled to, but none of them, or any the events still in the series now, are able to cater for what was such a varied entry of pre65/twinshock machines and rider abilities on one route - that's the reason the series has needed supporting with additional classes for the last 10 or so years. Moving on to the point about dropping the modern classes from the ACU Classic, well, I don't think you can just do that. With an average entry of say 10 pre65 and 20 twinshocks at most rounds who is going to want to go to the trouble of organising an event for those numbers? - no-one. So you cannot just kick out the modern classes. The problem is still the single route. Personally, as I've said before I don't think that on balance there is anything wrong with the sections in what are considered to be the harder rounds of this series (this year's Phil King excepted - see my previous post as I wasn't there) They are not put on for the modern bikes contrary to repeated suggestion and as I've also said before, the classic winners sometimes score better than the modern class winners. It's a National championship and should take around a dozen marks off the winner. Any 70s on twinshock is capable of tackling the sections, no question, but you do need a well sorted (trick, fiddle or whatever you want to call them) pre65 to compete in some of them. So straight away the single route excludes many pre65 riders. So what is the way forward for a Classic championship in which sometimes only 20% of the entry are classic bikes. Personally, I've no problem with modern bikes being included but I do think it makes a mockery of the series title. Maybe it is true to say also, that due to the generally aired opinion that the trials are set out for modern bikes, potential entrants think that the sections will be too hard for classics and stay away. Another problem is that you now have groups of mates travelling to these events who participate in the different classes in the series and who travel together and share costs. Knock out the modern bikes and matey on his classic no longer travels either as he's now on his own - or how about this for a radical thought, maybe those riding the modern class that have a twinshock/pre65 in the shed drag that out instead and start riding it again - there are plenty of trials to ride the modern bike in you know.... So, there is maybe an alternative way forward or just leave things as they are and see how the series progresses naturally. I'm not advocating either but how about this as an alternative. Go back to 2 routes with the harder route being the championship route with the sections marked out to how they are now (in the better rounds of the series that is...) Easier, non-championship route for riders who want more gentle sections which will hopefully encourage more pre65/twinshock entrants. Also enable groups of mates of differing abilities but who share an interest in classics to travel around together too. There are loads of twinshocks in particular being sold on ebay every week so what is happening to them. This series is ideal to use them for what they were intended instead of treating them as investments or museum pieces. Most of the entries today are Honda, Fantic, Majesty, the odd Bultaco and Ossa - can't remember when I last saw a Montesa but enough get sold on ebay. Variety of machinery was what used to be so good about this series in the early days. 2 routes may just get some of these bikes and riders back out. Leave the classes as they are now. Promote the new changes to the series (for next year?) and when it gets underway monitor the number of riders entering each class. If the classic entries start increasing in sufficient numbers to a point where the event limit is now being reached across all classes then maybe it could be feasible to cap the number of entries in the modern classes and give priority to the classics. If the point is reached where places in the modern classes eventually become at a premium then maybe those classes and championship could move in with the Novogar. Maybe 2 routes won't make any difference at all - who knows? If this is deemed a viable proposition then things won't happen overnight and I'd guess at a transitional period of a couple of years. You'd also need clubs who would be willing to apply to stage a round which now incorporates 2 routes instead of one (sidecar rounds do that anyway) There should also be an undertaking that the clubs organising rounds that are integrated with certain sidecar events ensure that the sections are of a sufficient challenge for the solos too, as some of them are lacking badly in this respect. So, a possible way forward which could have an impact on two series - or should things just stay the same Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts