It may have been mentioned here before, But the reality is that the market will decide what product will be successful. If a manufacturer makes a bike that involves too many "exotic" components and becomes too expensive, People will not buy it. Likewise, if a manufacturer produces bikes that are continually not reliable. (Every manufacturer has a few years) people will not buy them. This logic applies to all products, it is the pursuit of continuous improvement that keeps manufacturers balancing the three fundamental factors; "Performance-Reliability-Cost". (There are three factors not just cost and reliabilty) I dont think retarding this continued development follows any logic. Scorpa SY series were a bike that had good reliabilty and cost, but fell behind on performance, so no one bought them and they went bankrupt. People will vote with their wallets for what makes the best balace for them. Interfrering with this, I believe is bad for the sport and bad for business.

It may have been mentioned here before, But the reality is that the market will decide what product will be successful. If a manufacturer makes a bike that involves too many "exotic" components and becomes too expensive, People will not buy it. Likewise, if a manufacturer produces bikes that are continually not reliable. (Every manufacturer has a few years) people will not buy them. This logic applies to all products, it is the pursuit of continuous improvement that keeps manufacturers balancing the three fundamental factors; "Performance-Reliability-Cost". (There are three factors not just cost and reliabilty) I dont think retarding this continued development follows any logic. Scorpa SY series were a bike that had good reliabilty and cost, but fell behind on performance, so no one bought them and they went bankrupt. People will vote with their wallets for what makes the best balace for them. Interfrering with this, I believe is bad for the sport and bad for business.

It isn't that simple otherwise the Montesa 4RT wouldn't sell.

It's reliable but heavier (thus a little less overall performance) and more expensive than most bikes and still it is loved and bought by many club riders.

Its exactly that simple. The Montesa has not sold well for the last several years because it was heavy and over priced. They have helped sales this year by improving performance and reducing cost - as Mickl's model suggests.

I would venture to add that here in the UK had Honda montesa had a decent trials based importer that sales would have been much better.

Its exactly that simple. The Montesa has not sold well for the last several years because it was heavy and over priced. They have helped sales this year by improving performance and reducing cost - as Mickl's model suggests.

I'm sorry but mickl said 'If a manufacturer makes a bike that involves too many "exotic" components and becomes too expensive, People will not buy it.' and also said 'so no one bought them and they went bankrupt'

Montesa/Honda may not sell very much bikes but they do sell some and they're not bankrupt.

And as nigel says, sales also depend on the support one gets from the dealer and importer so no it's not as simple as "Performance-Reliability-Cost"

It doesn't matter if a trials manufacturer also sells cars an other motorcyles or has to work together with another larger motorcycle company to survive or to lower the costs, as long as I can buy a decent reliable trials bike.

Edited April 26, 201412 yr by guys

OK, some of that is true, but rather than argue semantics, I think his overall assessment is very true in a free market. At 10.000 ft, I think he said that the market regulates itself and dont try to control it with arbitrary rules.

I'll add that I think that the current regulation is just wrong for many, many reasons. The extreme lack of transparency is a really bad sign here. Very poorly done IMO. If you want a decent, reliable trials bike go buy a Honda. Whats stopping you? Just because its 20 lbs too heavy - dont regulate the others. Fix It! For people to say that there good clubman bikes, then prove it and support them. If people buy them in great numbers, the others will follow. However, Its not the markets problem that Honda decided that 4t's were the ultimate solution to everything on 2 wheels (or water). If they want to compete, use engineers, not politicians. If the lightweight bikes are crap, they will fail, as they should. No propaganda needed. The fact that they are holding the largest market share would indicate that most people think there cost/performance/reliability and support is just fine.

Edited April 26, 201412 yr by laser1

You would be surprised what crap some people, me included, are willing to take just to ride a bike they think is going to make them competitive, looks cool, is ridden by there favorite rider or is cheap at first sight.

I've read it here many times that when a bike is broken, the first people try to do is get it fixed and even don't think about the fact that it could be a warranty issue.

A guy at our club had to replace both complete brake master cylinders (formula) when the bike was less than a year old.

He got it done under warranty as it should be but not a year later his rear brake master cylinder failed again and who got stuck with the bill do you think?

A trial bike dealer I know said that almost every bike (from a well known brand) he took in payment one or two years ago, had cracks in the frame at one or more places.

And no they where not all from expert riders who's bike had a hard life.

This brand is still as succesfull as ever and never got the bill for their own poor craftsmanship.

Just to say that marketing plays a big part in today's economy.

You only have to look at the succes of the Apple I-phone when it came out: A 500 euro phone with a battery that lasted only a couple of years at best and that couldn't be replaced:

An expensive gadget with a programmed limited life span if you ask me, but when the new model came out, people where lining the streets to get a new one.

Edited April 26, 201412 yr by guys

Guys, you make some good points. I agree that the cracked frames should be warrantied. It is disappointing when leading brands don't bother to slightly revise their frames year by year to stop breakages. They could make small modifications, but they don't bother. The only way to make them take notice is for the dealers to warranty genuine failures and charge them back to the manufacturers.

As far as I can tell, the 'trouble free' life expectancy of a GasGas/Beta/Sherco trials bike is probably around 250hrs under an good rider weighing 85kg. If you practice once a week and compete once a week, the bike will last one year. If you ride less, are less aggressive, or lighter, expect 2-3 years. On the other hand, if you are 'expert', heavy, and ride few days per week, you will need 2-3 bikes per year. Although all bikes can be kept running for many years, after these times cracked frames, worn out clutches, bearings etc will need replacement as the bikes are becoming 'tired all over'.

Something to ponder. The factory Honda engines would have had at least 30K spent on each of them. A garden variety 4 stroke engine is cheap, a refined one very expensive. I have no doubt they are expensive. By comparison, Adam Raga's engine will be very close in cost to a stock engine. 2 strokes are very cheap to modify, 4 strokes extremely expensive. Toni Bou's bike would cost many times what Adam Raga's bike costs.

If the FIM was even slightly serious about fixing some of the equality problems at the highest level in trials, they would introduce 'production based' rules like are used in AMA motocross. In AMA motocross, prescribed parts such as frames must be standard production items. They even have claiming rules, to stop the factories spending too much on their race bikes. The overall benefit is that production bikes get improved more frequently, and a privateer can build a competitive bike.

The problem is, however, that Honda are clearly 'pulling many of the strings' in WTC. A production rule would mean that Honda would need to make a competitive bike at a competitive price, which they can't.

ianw, I doubt if there is much difference between 2 and 4 stroke tuning costs when it comes to a trials engine.

Something I have noticed on Honda mx, road bike and industrial engines is how accurate and consistent the stock engines became in the late 1980s and I assume that trend has continued.

I suspect Bou's bike, particularly regards engine mechanicals may be a lot closer to stock than people think.

Just a bigger hole

...and special crankcases and less gears and i think we compare the barrel height once and it was different also.

Its in the opinion of most Bou's bike is the most modified bike in the paddock, not to mention the ti spindles which have been "banned" for years.

are they still running the twin spark system?

Edited May 5, 201412 yr by nigel dabster

ianw, I doubt if there is much difference between 2 and 4 stroke tuning costs when it comes to a trials engine.

Something I have noticed on Honda mx, road bike and industrial engines is how accurate and consistent the stock engines became in the late 1980s and I assume that trend has continued.

I suspect Bou's bike, particularly regards engine mechanicals may be a lot closer to stock than people think.

Rubbish again.

Anyone tried to change ignition maps on a production 4rt with their phone ?

There is little argument that Bou's bike shows only a passing resemblance to the production bike, and is extremely expensive. Everyone in the WTC except the Honda riders are really riding something based on a stock bike, because that is what the industry can afford. It works very well, and the real factories make very good stock bikes because they basically compete on what they sell. By comparison, Honda makes fantastic bikes for their WTC riders, but their stock bikes are overweight and expensive. Honda appears to only be involved in trials for promotional purposes. It's just another motorsport title they can put on their list. That's why it is so bizzare to increase the weight limit so that Honda can maybe sell a token handful of production bikes, at the expense of every 'real' factory.

Surely there is a good argument for WTC to use a production based rule? Wouldn't that have the effect of forcing Honda to either get out, or make a competitive production bike like everyone else?

We really need to question whether Honda's involvement in trials as it stands is good for the sport overall. They are a very capable company, and it is shame they are not involved in trials to sell trials bikes on their merit.

and rather nicely that takes us back to ask the question of the FIM as to why they go to japan every year simply to pander to one of the big four, who as stated above may not even be good for our sport?