I see the Dakar and Transafrican Safari have classes for road legal quads. When fitted with appropriately terrain-friendly tyres, could there be a place in Classic Trials for them?
I must admit to having little experience of quads, but they cannot be any worse for the environment that a two person and ballasted class eight on full power. I've had to get stuck in plenty of their deep muddy ruts caused by tall wheels, etc. We cannot say that quads should be in the seperate motorcycle events because we already share classic trials with bikes, some even have sidecars and two people. So has the nettle been grasped and all the details sorted out and it's just me that doesn't know about it?
Perhaps I could run it past the Ilkley C of C as a taster if anyone is interested?
Regards to all,
John
But you wouldn't be able to sit beside Bri John
ReplyDeleteHe's just upset I beat him in the Ilkley december club trial . . . Lets just say a bloke in an ALLEGRO dropped 18 marks all day . . .and a certain someone dropped 215 . . . TWO HUNDRED and FIFTEEN ! hee hee. . . Bri
ReplyDeleteAssuming that this is a serious suggestion and not another example of Yorkshire humour which those of us South of Watford sometimes struggle to spot .... I'm not keen on the idea from either a PR or a safety point of view. They seem prone to tipping over and landing on people and because they are powerful and pretty heavy they seem to cause serious injuries: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2964782/Twelve-year-old-boy-killed-in-quad-bike-accident.html To put that in perspective 450kg of quad bike is approaching the weight of some of the lighter class 8 vehicles... On the pr front google 'quad bikes byways' and the second search result appears courtesy of our bobble hatted friends and personally I think the association with '4wds' is one we want to avoid: http://www.ramblers.org.uk/rights_of_way/knowledge_portal/advice_notes/byways_restricted_byways_and_tracks.htm
ReplyDeleteResponding to Ian's note, I don't have any yearnings toward using a quad so there is no underlying message in my enquiry. I merely recognise the form of transport as being not catered for in Classic trialling. There are few modes of transport more prone to tipping over than that used by our colleagues on sidecars and the bobble hat brigade are persistently pressing their opinions about their perceived mis-use of off-road two wheel motorbikes so I don't regard the quads as any worse. Please excuse the huge generalisation but put a twelve year old farm boy on a quad and he gets on with the work, put a city boy on it and he'll do damage. So my point is that by bringing quads into the fold of sensible motorsort, exemplified by our ACU buddies, it may be a positive step towards combatting the damage done by irresponsible countryside users. We will not catch all of the culprits but we already don't catch the vast majority of solo motorcyclist who do so much to get us bad PR. I'm a great believer in 'Put up or shut up' and as I don't want to champion the cause for quads I'll now shut up on that topic. To get even with Brian for eventually beating me by 1% on the last trial of the year, having been thrashed all the other times in 2008, I've a good mind to navigate for him again. So no need to teach a pretty Yorkshire sheep to read maps, stick to dating them. Regards to all, John
ReplyDeleteCheers John. I know that link about the young lad was a bit sensationalist but there was another one I could have used from the HSE advising farmers to be careful because of the high number of injuries involving farm workers and quad bikes. Given that most farmers and their workers know more about driving 'off-road' than most of us ever will that would perhaps have been a better example to use. On the PR front you may be right but I think the danger is we'd just create an association between ourselves and a group of motorised vehicle users which (rightly or wrongly) is viewed negatively by antis and I just don't think we need to do that. If anything what we learnt from the whole NERC thing is that we are percieved by the powers that be as 'different' from the '4wd/quad bike/mini-moto' brigade and I think that is a distinction we need to maintain rather than blur.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteAs a quad rider I think there are good and bad people who use
them. Just like the 4x4 controversy it is caused by a few knobs who spoil it
for everyone.
But even a regular quad rider I can see the damage that I think
it would cause the trials from a PR point of view.
From: Ian Davis
[mailto:gbbuggydriver@hotmail.com]
Sent: 14 January 2009 12:52
To: Classical Gas, For Trials enthusiasts
Subject: Re: Quads??
New
Message on Classical
Gas, For Trials enthusiasts
Quads??
Reply
Reply to Sender
<a target="_top" href="http://groups.msn.com/ClassicalGasForTrialsenthusiasts/_notifications.msnw?type=msg&action=recommend&p
I'm not so sure. I reckon the public, wandering in their great, unspoilt, outdoor countryside simply see a load of idiots in old bangers ruining the aforementioned great etc, regardless of the vehicle type. Maybe more harm is done to our image from the "can't believe it's not going to go forwards, regardless of the fact we're already noticeably rolled backwards, maybe if we go to valve-bounce revs to create even more noise and even more clouds of thick, white, tyre smoke" brigade. I know some of my work collegues, having been persuaded out to spectate by me, can nearly see the point of attempting sections, simply because they are there, but cannot understand the half-hour attempts to dig down to Australia in an attempt to find grip. White smoke in great billowing clouds from motor vehicles is too closely associated with the people, mainly "yoofs", who destroy tyres in senseless burnouts at "cruises" - also associated with "hoodie" types. There's not a lot of difference to the passer-by between us, and the news reports they see of illegal gatherings, erroneously called "rallies", of kids in body-kitted Corsas etc. Working on those lines, I'm going to be attempting to shut the Yeller Dutton up a bit more this year with a new exhaust. Bri
ReplyDelete"Could there be a place for them?" Yes ...... if you want to make it harder and harder to get permission to run events. And to make existing events attract more opposition. Setting aside the notion of equating damage done to tracks for a moment (which actually seems more like an argument against heavily ballasted specials) - Joe Public and even some greenies can be swayed into accepting occasional trials use of their local tracks by careful PR. Emphasising the 100 year history and the use of so many classic and vintage cars. (Been there, done that) Start to introduce quads ( and even more freaky specials that ought to be doing Comp Safaris but come pot-hunting in classic trials) and IMHO you are signing a death warrant for the sport.
ReplyDeleteOne of the marshalls had a little quad at Wooston Steep a few years ago when it stopped a fair few of the class 7&8s. He brought it in the back of a Sherpa van or similar to save his legs. I don't think it was particularly powerful. The quad went up the steep bit no problem, with some gear on the back. That could make a problem for finding challenging sections surely? Also, could there not be a risk of a quad rolling backwards if charging a step (bottom of Waterloo, Slippery Sam?) or getting off certain restarts set to be difficult for cars? I'm sure that that that would hurt more than coming off a destabalised bike. What about reversing them down a hill, assuming they could be stopped?
ReplyDeleteQuads are great machines for certain jobs. Farm work,racing,work horse. The big machines can weigh in at over 20 stone flip over for fun. Just see the bad press on them! (for comp work you must be tethered to a kill button) The big four stroke japanese makes, rev for fun 13500rpm with some nice exhaust notes to go with that rev range! (Banshee wail comes to mind) The main problem they will all have is the DIFF test, they don't have one! If you ever see one the road scarey!! you hang off the seat to get round corners roundabout etc.
ReplyDelete"Maybe more harm is done to our image from the "can't believe it's not going to go forwards, regardless of the fact we're already noticeably rolled backwards, maybe if we go to valve-bounce revs to create even more noise and even more clouds of thick, white, tyre smoke" brigade. I know some of my work collegues, having been persuaded out to spectate by me, can nearly see the point of attempting sections, simply because they are there, but cannot understand the half-hour attempts to dig down to Australia in an attempt to find grip. White smoke in great billowing clouds from motor vehicles is too closely associated with the people, mainly "yoofs", who destroy tyres in senseless burnouts at "cruises" - also associated with "hoodie" types." mrbricol has a good point. Bored with Christmas, I watched a few trials videos. Restarts on Bluehills 2, Tillerton and Big Uplands all shared one thing. A significant number of cars failing to "attain forward motion" then went to maximum revs with the inevitable large cloud of smoke. Marshals used to signal 'ceasefire' after the five seconds(?) were up - but that seems to have largely gone by the board to judge by the video evidence. Far worse is that having actually moved forward, some cars stop (i.e. undriven wheels static) and are then allowed to burn and burn and burn until they start moving. And yes, a check on the results show them given a clear. Marshalls are worth their weight in gold - but surely the basics need clarifying?
ReplyDeleteGoing slightly off topic, amusingly, on pcts, we have attempted the burn technique once or twice, having seen it work for others on particular parts of a section. John arrived at the point in question, started the old burn away trick (on MY tyres, I might add) and, hilariously, (you had to be there) got failed immediately - even though even I, as his main competition, and ballast, did point out to the marshal in question that the undriven wheels were still rotating forwards, thus indicating some forward motion was being maintained. Due to my superior skill, I made it on my turn up the section with John as my ballast, without spinning a wheel. The hilarious part came from the previous competitor, who had a slight family connection to the marshal, being allowed to sit there, with the non-driven wheels rotating slightly backwards on at least two occasions, for a couple of minutes . . . Bri
ReplyDeleteHi Steve, Scutter's Dad, Sir. Would you mind dropping me an email on rhodesj3@sky.com , please as I need advice on road registering a second-hand vehicle. The cockpit sides on the Dutton are becoming narrower, it is increasingly difficult to fit between them so I may have the answer but it is not road legal yet. TTFN
ReplyDeleteJohn
Bri Some of the NTF boys seemed to have re-written the "ceased forward motion" rule a few years back. On a Gloucester Trial at Lypiatt some while ago, a well known NTF driver was upset by a marshal who had given him a Fail at 6. The driver had stopped, turned on the revs and after a second or two started moving again to 'clear' the section. Says he to the marshal :- "You're new to marshaling sporting trials aren't you?" Marshal :- "Yes - but I have read the rules".
ReplyDelete