Jump to content

nickday1

Some interesting views on WTC / FIM

Recommended Posts

On 8/9/2019 at 12:40 PM, faussy said:

You cant really call Thierry Michaud an idiot. But i agree, you would think someone who has masses of experience would take the sport in the right direction, not the wrong one

He isnt an idiot hes stubborn, thought that no stop would help the likes of Gubian make it into the top few and increase participation, afaik he didnt help sport 7 as the changes werent his ideas. Hes a cheat and a freeloader.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

23 minutes ago, nigel dabster said:

He isnt an idiot hes stubborn, thought that no stop would help the likes of Gubian make it into the top few and increase participation, afaik he didnt help sport 7 as the changes werent his ideas. Hes a cheat and a freeloader.

I have to say, when i first heard about the rule change i was excited, and i thought it was a step in the right direction (even though i thought going back to a dab for a stop would have been better than a 5 for a stop). I believe he had the best intentions, it just didn't have the right execution

Edited by faussy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
19 hours ago, faussy said:

I have to say, when i first heard about the rule change i was excited, and i thought it was a step in the right direction (even though i thought going back to a dab for a stop would have been better than a 5 for a stop). I believe he had the best intentions, it just didn't have the right execution

execution as in madame la guilotine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
On 8/13/2019 at 11:05 AM, faussy said:

I have to say, when i first heard about the rule change i was excited, and i thought it was a step in the right direction (even though i thought going back to a dab for a stop would have been better than a 5 for a stop). I believe he had the best intentions, it just didn't have the right execution

That’s an interesting proposal. So you’re suggesting 1 mark for a feet-up stop, and 5 for a foot-down stop? It seems quite a good idea to me but you’re still left trying to differentiate marginal movement from a momentary stop.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
On 8/11/2019 at 7:08 PM, baldilocks said:

The problem with it , just from my point of view isn't the riders or the minders, it's the people putting the flags in. WTC supposedly went no stop but the sections haven't ? Taking minders out should lead to less dangerous sections but I can't see that happening either.

Those who inspect the sections need to start doing their job so that the section severity is compatible with the rules.

Jordi Pasquet is paid to do that job, and michaud should be overseeing it?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
11 hours ago, trapezeartist said:

That’s an interesting proposal. So you’re suggesting 1 mark for a feet-up stop, and 5 for a foot-down stop? It seems quite a good idea to me but you’re still left trying to differentiate marginal movement from a momentary stop.

Kind of, that's the way the rules were for a few years in the early 2000s, a 1 for any kind of stop, feet up or down. You're correct, but observers were more confident in giving a 1 for a stop because it was less severe, and riders argued less because a 1 didn't ruin their chances so much.

Edited by faussy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
3 hours ago, faussy said:

Kind of, that's the way the rules were for a few years in the early 2000s, a 1 for any kind of stop, feet up or down. You're correct, but observers were more confident in giving a 1 for a stop because it was less severe, and riders argued less because a 1 didn't ruin their chances so much.

I can see this being a good way to work it too.  However I think the main difficulty with any of these is identifying the difference between a stop and a pause.  Personally I think it's reasonable to include provision for momentary pauses for composure, allow for body movement across the bike (even thought technically the bike may be stationary).  In fact, I can think of lots of situations where the rider is lunging their weight backwards of forwards across the bike to assert direction, yet the bike may be stood still for a moment.  Usually the no-stop police come crashing in that the bike is technically stationary, despite the rider positively engaging to move the bike.

I think this is perfectly legitimate given the techniques of manipulating the bikes, but is still very different from an actual stop (the kind of thing where the rider has their heads up, is changing gears etc).

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
17 hours ago, trapezeartist said:

That’s an interesting proposal. So you’re suggesting 1 mark for a feet-up stop, and 5 for a foot-down stop? It seems quite a good idea to me but you’re still left trying to differentiate marginal movement from a momentary stop.

This rule came in in 1998. A feet up stop was 1 mark, stop and 1 foot down 2, stop and 2 feet down was a 3. You couldn't move the bike in any direction unless you were moving forward. It worked well but observers became more lenient largely due to the severity of sections changing. It worked well for years until the Spanish decided they didn't like it anymore. It was however a good solution rather than full blown no-stop and far easier for the riders to accept a 1 for stopping as opposed to getting a 5.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
On 8/15/2019 at 1:54 PM, worlez said:

I can see this being a good way to work it too.  However I think the main difficulty with any of these is identifying the difference between a stop and a pause.  Personally I think it's reasonable to include provision for momentary pauses for composure, allow for body movement across the bike (even thought technically the bike may be stationary).  In fact, I can think of lots of situations where the rider is lunging their weight backwards of forwards across the bike to assert direction, yet the bike may be stood still for a moment.  Usually the no-stop police come crashing in that the bike is technically stationary, despite the rider positively engaging to move the bike.

I think this is perfectly legitimate given the techniques of manipulating the bikes, but is still very different from an actual stop (the kind of thing where the rider has their heads up, is changing gears etc).

I think you are dead right about a stop and a pause. Back in the Sammy Miller days when trials technique was about keeping the wheels turning and throttle control to maintain momentum, then it was easier to define between a forward motion and a stop motion. These days trials is so dynamic, especially at the top level the task of defining a stop from a split second pause, to maintaining forward motion is far more difficult to judge. For the observers its a nightmare to maintain any sort of consistency that is fair across the board.

I think in principal the "no stop" rule is/was a good idea as it in theory should level the playing field better and provide better safer sections and less boring to watch for the spectators. But in reality it isn't working because "stopping" in modern world trials is too ambiguous. For it to remain and improve then there needs to be some clear definitive consistency to what is actually deemed a "stop". I don't have the answer and I think most folk are scratching their heads on how to tackle the issue. 

Personally I would definitely have a 90 second time limit per section, maybe have a pause allowance i.e perhaps a max 3 seconds and I would want to see a larger variety of terrain and section styles included. It seems that the section builders tend to follow a common trend these days which just falls nicely into the hands of Bou and co.  If you notice when the sections are do or die style then Bou tends to blow the field away. Maybe add some more trickier stuff in there that gets the riders to think more about lines, throttle control, maintaining momentum and grip... If you notice, other than the big fails, they are the types of sections that take the marks of the riders. 

Edited by Intotrials
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I personally believe that the world championship riders need to form a 'Riders Association' so that they have some say in the direction the sport is going. The non stop doesn't work and was never popular among the riders and yet we still have it. The riders  need to band together in a united front and put their views/demands to the FIM. If it is true Michaud makes up the rules on his own that is a ridiculous situation and needs to change. By the way if they do have an association they need to become a bit more vocal.All other professional sports have this in place to provide better/safer conditions, Moto GP, Formula 1, Tennis, Golf, etc, etc.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...