29.5.2007

Dear Steve

At the recent T & E meeting we received two letters from you in relation to Youth in Trials.  We note the second one was sent to Gary Thompson who of course is our General Secretary and he has passed it onto the Committee for our comments.

Obviously, it is quite difficult in a written reply to give very detailed answers to all the points you raise however I will attempt to give some insight into some of the decisions you question.

I must say here however that each year we see the Trials Forum as an ideal opportunity to discuss such matters at length – and with a diversity of opinion. Certainly many of the aspects of Youth trials that are mentioned in your letters have been on the agenda in the past few forums. 

You raise several valid points and I think it best if I try to give a general sort of synopsis of the whole issue of Youth capacity classes etc.

Any change in capacity classes – whatever the discipline will always result in people who are in disagreement with the change. The easy option of course is to change nothing and retain the status quo. This is an option that many seem to extol – often with perhaps the intention of presenting a popular opinion – or merely pandering to desire or complaint expressed by others. This is not in our opinion the way a sporting Committee should act, their decision should be made on what they think is correct. Certainly consultation and thought should go into any such decision making, but after this, and as previously stated after giving people the opportunity to attend open forum’s etc, the die is cast so to speak, and certainly it cannot be revisited on each and every time someone is not too happy about it.

An important consideration in such matters is that the Standing Regulations have to apply to all 21 Centres and whilst it may seem desirable for those in a particular area to do this or that, often without problems, our task as a Committee is surely to introduce rules that can apply to all our sport, and it is this that we have to consider on a nationwide basis.

This brings me to the point you make that Youth riders should be graded as to ability rather than age. Surely this would be extremely difficult to achieve as it would be very subjective and the person or persons doing the “grading” would have no common standard for which to aim, and the variation across the UK could be immense? 

We fully accept that at local level – it is the local organisers who know best about the ability their young riders – and that is why under TSR 21 for events below National status, the organiser is allowed at their discretion to allow a Youth rider to compete in a class higher or lower than their normal class, this should allow the flexibility you desire.

It must be confirmed here however that should a Youth rider compete in a Class higher or lower than the norm for their age, the capacity limit for that class definitely still applies,  so a young rider cannot move up a class just to get onto a bigger machine. Whatever the class, awards, category etc – when a rider is competing as a Youth they are governed by the capacity limit laid down for their respective age group.

It became apparent a few years ago however that there were a number of young riders who were certainly “over biked” with the modern 250cc machines. It has to be accepted that technology moves on and the power (coupled with the reduction in weight) made the new generation of trials machine far more powerful and responsive, and it was felt by many that the capacity limit needed to be reduced for our younger riders.

Both the FIM and UEM moved in this direction, and it was a logical step to consider that the UK should adopt the same capacity rules.   Other countries were also following this option.

Actually there was another reason the FIM and UEM  adopted this initiative, and that was that it was starting to become an issue where possibly an event could be regarded as using  tracks or ground which may have been regarded as “ public” – not necessarily tarmac highway – but still public paths etc. As you are aware this is a very cloudy area indeed and one I fear we will become more involved in.

Our rules – and signing on forms etc stipulate that where Road Traffic Act insurance is required, the rider confirms he has this in place.  Many of us of course are more than happy to leave the onus of obtaining this firmly with the rider.   We assume that he has obtained the necessary cover – if required.    One concern of the FIM and UEM – and one that we should surely need to echo is that it was not possible for A  riders to insure 250cc machines – so it was not a question of assuming they had correct cover – one categorically knew they did not. At least with 125cc machines for some of them it is a viable option. 

In light of the FIM and UEM moves, and the previously stated concerns, members of the ACU T & E Committee met several years ago with the UK trials importers to discus the whole issue.

I have to say it was a productive meeting – and one  where ex top World competitors such John Lampkin , Malcolm Rathmell  and John Shirt  were  obviously involved, I think we were able to glean a fairly constructive opinion of the virtues of  the present 125cc machines.   Indeed it was fairly obvious to all that the modern 125 is a far cry from even a few years ago, and it was felt that the FIM were correct in their thinking.

One could certainly be forgiven for perhaps thinking that Importers will always have an eye to the commercial opportunity ,and I would normally agree with this. On this subject however they were constructive and convinced that the Youth riders needed to learn their techniques on the 125cc machines , which it was stated relied often on skill rather than brute power to achieve the results in a given section.

It is perhaps worth mentioning that some of the importers at this time such as Montesa and Scorpa did not produce 125cc machines and would be disadvantaged by the proposed change. Equally , merely from a stocking point of view , the other importers did not really see the introduction of the 125cc limit as a commercial benefit , but were actually unanimous in agreeing that the 125 limit was not only desirable but would eventually be a benefit to the UK riders in the long term,   we believe the World and European results of UK riders in last few years are confirming this.

It may be worth recalling here, that one young man of note in his youth years remained on a 125 c machine far later than he was required to do so , as his mentors considered that it was the skill learnt on these machine that would later benefit him. The young mans name was Dougie Lampkin and I am sure if you actually speak to him he will confirm that opinion.

Once the decision was taken to align with the FIM etc we were obviously concerned that parents who had bought 250cc machines for their youngsters were not greatly disadvantaged and this is why we have phased the 125 capacity class in over a number of years, so that no one should be suffer if they already had a 250. The new capacities have been well publicised in the Press  and Internet and information sent to clubs and centres, and each year of the run in period, the ACU handbook as contained  details of the new capacities with the phase in date.  

I must admit that I have heard of a few cases where a parent has bought a 250cc machine and then found that the youngster could not compete on it; frankly I believe that the clubs and centres need to be offering the correct advice and information on this issue – which they are certainly aware.  Certainly some dealers who have seen fit to sell youngsters machines of the wrong capacity for them to enter the sport have done us no favours and probably should not be selling trials machines.

 It is for this reason that I am afraid we cannot agree with any attempt to “circumnavigate” the rules on these capacities – and if as you imply in your letter there are people riding “illegally” I would ask the clubs and centres concerned to start acting responsibly and ensure they are not.

With any “phase” in of new capacities there will obviously be difficulties, and the C class we would agree was the one which gave us most concern.  However as previously stated, there has been more than adequate notice and the run in period was designed to cause as little inconvenience as possible.

I do have sympathy with the principle of a parent being allowed to introduce his youngster to the sport by sharing a machine, but the obvious comment here is that those adults who have the desire to do so would be well advised to ride a 125cc machine themselves which would then be suitable for the A and B class riders.

We should not leave the subject of the 125cc machines without perhaps looking at what is actually happening out there.   Certainly at the highest level FIM and UEM the 125cc capacity limit is now not seen as a disadvantage at all.  Those who witnessed Alex Wigg for example in his quest for World honours last year would surely confirm that the 125 was no disadvantage. In fact I am fairly sure that Alex – who is now quite a strong physically developed lad as well as an imminently sensible one – would be more than happy to relate that he is finding  riding a larger machine than the 125cc a disadvantage at present.

Looking at the first 3 rounds of the British Trials Championship, I am sure the results show that in the Expert class where there are some very accomplished and experienced riders, it is in fact Ross Danby on a 125cc who has been on the podium in each round.   In the St David’s (round 2) there were certainly some fearsome climbs and steps – yet it was Ross on the 125cc machine that took the premier in the Expert class.     Lat week I observed at the Mitchell Trial , the third round  of the Brit Adult Championship,  and certainly the  5  Youth riders on 125cc machines tended to show the others how it should be done, and the technique above brute force  syndrome was a joy to see.

This is also echoed in the World and European Championships.

Therefore in answer to the question posed in your letter, we have to say that there is no intention to overturn this 125cc capacity limit for Class A and B riders.

While we were concerned about  youth being “over biked” this was not just capacity wise. There is a huge variation in the size of youngsters, and all too often we were witnessing C class riders on 125cc machine which as you know are the same physical height as a 250.  It was the front end that seemed to be the problem for some – with the inability of the shorter riders to be able to comfortably reach the ground when dabbing on full lock for example. For sure the larger C class riders could cope well, but equally there were many smaller riders who could not always be considered to be in control.

In addition to this, it is often the wheel size of the machine that can dictate the nature of the section, and while the full size 125’s had the ground clearance etc to cope with practically any section, there was we felt a tendency in some quarters to mark out the sections far too hard for the young C class riders.  A good example of this was the ridiculous intention of the organisers of the 2005 Inter Centre in Wales to make A, B and C riders ride the same sections.

The limit of C class riders to 80cc is not just one of capacity  – but certainly at present the physical size of the machines are far more in keeping with our intentions.

Additionally, there is a desire to see “progression” through capacities – i.e. a rider moves up from 50cc to 80cc and then on to 125cc   and eventually onto 250/280cc etc.

We actually suspect that in some cases the youngsters who ride 125cc machines in classes A &B   may well decide to remain with this capacity choice as adults – and this somewhat flawed concept that power is the answer to all – will perhaps finally be overcome.

To sum up then – certainly the 125cc limit will remain for Class A & B.

We will keep a watching brief on the C class – but present all indications are that this will not change; we do however take your comments on board as they are both constructive and accurate.

We do appreciate your concern over these matters – especially the opportunities lost to allow C class riders to try machines, but again we feel that as the new capacities unfold this problem will resolve itself and we are confident we will have at least done all in our power to maintain a safe and enjoyable sport for our youngsters.

John Collins

Chairman ACU Trials & Enduro Committee