Why Is Trials Not Bmx?

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

I competed in my local cycling clubs, (Rhyl Road Club) 'open' 10 mile time trial in 1984. For those who know, it was a 'float'.

I thought I was doing well. But as I crossed the line, Chris Boardman flew past me, like he'd been shot out of a cannon.

I'd achieved a fairly respectable time of 23.15 (my pb). Chris started 4 minute's after me, yet still managed to thrash me.

I have never, (then or since) witnessed such a level of natural ability such as his.

He could have been dressed as Mr Blobby, yet he would have still probably achieved his time of 19.15.

We were 15! Astounding.

It's not really natural ability though, is it? Road cycling is basically 100% down to fitness which is basically 100% down to training, hard work and single mindedness. In your club event Chris beat you (and I imagine everyone else?) by a long way. In the Olympic cycling events the finishes can be literally hundredths of a second apart and in such circumstances every possible advantage available becomes very important. You wouldn't believe the amount of time, effort and money thrown at the British Cycling team by UK sport on Computational Fluid Dynamics and wind tunnel testing to develop not only the bikes themselves but the riding position, helmet design and clothing worn by the athletes. We're talking hundreds of thousands if not millions. And that's just for the aerodynamics. I imagine just as much if not more is spent on the training regime and diet research to enable them to perform at the absolute peak of their abilities.

Of course it also helps if you're built like a brick outhouse like Hoy...

[Ali C]

Surely there's two questions here...

Competition riding is one thing. Clothing is function first above everything else. There's nothing less fun than riding in wet jeans at the end of a tough day. Riders in competitions are bound by the route, but are inventive for sure.

Street riders tend to wear very different clobber as fits. Who cares if there's a bit of a Ribo or Monty boot sticking out from under the bottom of some jeans? What matters is function - as to whatever suits the rider.

And how can people complain about trials riders nicking tricks from BMX? Every sport nicks tricks from others. Watching riders like Lenosky and Chase mix bits of slopestyle, trials, BMX, all sorts. That's life, that's progression. The alternative is that you start saying you can't do certain tricks because they've already been done.

Ultimatley what makes BMX companies able to do the things they do is the fact they have money. Lots of money. There's several BMX magazines, people make decent DVDs which sell in numbers, and lots and lots and lots of bikes and accessories are sold. Trials companies, even the biggest ones, don't have that sort of cash to support riders. There also arn't the big show case events which gets coverage, which gets sponsorship dollars, and attracts new riders. Trials clothing may not be the coolest stuff around, but that's because no-one makes trials aligned clothing which works for the mass market. Again, it's volume, it's availability, it's all of those things.

Go back to 2000-2003 and trials was genuinely huge. The simple reason was lots of coverage. Many, many pages in MBUK, segments in big selling videos, and lots of riders doing trials one way or another. People would queue for hours to see the trials shows at Bike, and you'd get people spectating at Nationals to see those stars.

Then the media coverage all but stopped. The bulk of what's in MBUK is centred around the Ashton/Diamondback line up. There's very limited trials coverage in mainstream videos. The trials community is very inward looking, and self-serving. There's few who try to break outside of that. Where are the interesting videos, let alone commercial DVDs? Who's approaching magazines with ideas for features? Who's trying to get that recognition one way or another?

said it better than I ever could!

[middleageman]

It's not really natural ability though, is it? Road cycling is basically 100% down to fitness which is basically 100% down to training, hard work and single mindedness. In your club event Chris beat you (and I imagine everyone else?) by a long way. In the Olympic cycling events the finishes can be literally hundredths of a second apart and in such circumstances every possible advantage available becomes very important. You wouldn't believe the amount of time, effort and money thrown at the British Cycling team by UK sport on Computational Fluid Dynamics and wind tunnel testing to develop not only the bikes themselves but the riding position, helmet design and clothing worn by the athletes. We're talking hundreds of thousands if not millions. And that's just for the aerodynamics. I imagine just as much if not more is spent on the training regime and diet research to enable them to perform at the absolute peak of their abilities.

Of course it also helps if you're built like a brick outhouse like Hoy...

I'm sorry, but I will have to disagree, (slightly ). To quote ;"It's not really natural ability though, is it?"

Of course, all the requirements for physical excellence require the statements you've made: "Road cycling is basically 100% down to training, hard work and singlemindedness".

But surely physical attributes play a major part in an athletes chosen discipline? Speaking for myself, being of a stockier build, I was hopeless at hillclimbing, but alright at sprints.

To (very much) generalize, in road cycling, the Columbians and Spaniards are good hillclimbers (small build), the Dutch/Belgian riders are good at sprints (stong and stocky).

In my experience, track riders and time trialers are usually fit and lean. I could carry on..... each to his own.... as they say.

I wonder if this relates to Trials?

middleageman.

ps. I also thought this article was rather interesting...

"But what makes these cyclists stand out from the man in the street - is it their years of dedicated training?

Or are famous riders, like Miguel Indurain, Lance Armstrong, Eddy Merckx, Bernard Hinault and Jacques Anquetil, born with the genes that will give them the extraordinary physique required to be a top level cyclist?

Jonathan Folland, lecturer in exercise physiology at the school of sport and exercise sciences at Loughborough University, believes cycling greats do have to thank their parents for a good set of genes - but cannot rely on nature's largesse alone.

Fantastic lung capacity

"These cyclists are phenomenal endurance athletes with remarkable physical abilities," he said.

"I believe the physiology is half-innate and half-created."

These cyclists have the ability to turn oxygen into peak energy. Miguel Indurain was phenomenal at this

Jonathan Folland

One of the major attributes needed for a successful Tour de France cyclist is a fantastic lung capacity.

Spaniard Miguel Indurain, who took five successive titles, had lungs so big they displaced his stomach, leading to his trademark paunch.

Indurain's lung capacity was eight litres, compared to an average of six litres.

Doctors also assess lung performance using a measure called Vo2 max - the highest volume of oxygen a person can consume during exercise.

In this too Indurain was exceptional - his Vo2 max levels were 88 ml/kg/min - almost double that of an untrained man or woman.

Three time winner Greg Le Mond was thought to have had a Vo2 max of 92.5 at the height of his career - one of the highest ever recorded.

And Lance Armstrong, the American who won the race seven times, had a Vo2 max of 83 ml/kg/min.

Dr Folland explained: "A Vo2 max of anything over 70 is considered elite.

"These cyclists have the ability to turn oxygen into peak energy. Miguel Indurain was phenomenal at this."

Dr Keith Prowse, chairman of the British Lung Foundation agreed that these cyclists had respiratory systems that set them apart from ordinary mortals."

I'm f***ed. I smoke.

Edited March 8, 2009 by middleageman

[F-Stop Junkie]

There's definately ideal muscle types to have as a trials rider, but there's so many factors that go into riding that it can't simply be broken down into one or two key elements. Road riding is largely down to who has the biggest engine (and with a PB at a club 10 of 28:30, mine's pretty rubbish!), but those who are physically more adept will rise to the top. In trials I've seen big guys do as well as short guys. The technique is so adaptable that - as long as you have a decent level of fitness, most riders can do most things. Those who are heavier on fast twitch muscle will ride differently to those who are made of more slow twitch fibre.

It's a bit like comparing a dragster to a rally car. Oh, and getting quite OT.

[mehukatti]

Go back to 2000-2003 and trials was genuinely huge. The simple reason was lots of coverage. Many, many pages in MBUK, segments in big selling videos, and lots of riders doing trials one way or another. People would queue for hours to see the trials shows at Bike, and you'd get people spectating at Nationals to see those stars.

You hit the nail there. Current trials riders seem to have forgotten those times, or maybe most didn't even ride back then. I think the biggest reason for trials getting much smaller over the last five years or so, is because the bikes have become so specialised that ordinary people don't really associate them with normal bikes in any way. And on the other hand, riders in other diciplines often don't want to try out trials because the bikes are so freakish, almost impossible to sell if you get bored with it (atleast where I live) and you basically need a car to get from spot to spot in many cases. Meanwhile BMX has grown a lot. As far as I know, there are maybe five active trials riders in Helsinki and surrounding area, with about one million inhabitants.

Edited March 10, 2009 by mehukatti

[neotropolis]

Ive never realy been into BMXing, but the 1st time i saw some older kids on trials bikes (when i was about 8 or 9 years old) it made me instantly want to start doing it so i built a bike and got on with it. i jus ride for the love of riding, im not bothered about what people think of me etc...

[psycholist]

This question on trials vs. BMX is pretty much the same as asking why everyone doesn't play soccer or go fishing (The top two sports in the UK last time I saw figures). Since they're already popular why would anyone bother doing anything else?

Also the mindset of BMX (A lot of which is the 'hit it fast enough and if you don't die it will look cool' method) is one that is more common in general society, so it's easier to get people to start BMX. People understand all or nothing type moves better than the subtle increments that often measure progress in trials. TGS riding is more like the BMX style in that the moves can be understood as all or nothing by a casual observer, but since they don't usually involve carrying huge amounts of momentum they'll never look as impressive. I'm pretty sure most people on this forum did not take up trials to impress other people - for me it's always been about seeing what I can do. If I was worried about what other people thought I'd take up soccer or some other boring activity (Or more likely not done any sport at all) in order to conform better with society's expectations.

[Rusevelt]

About the same as biketrials then.

I don't buy that.

[mr_malcolm]

I have to agree with a point made a few times already i think the way that the frames are so different almost discoureges(sp) people it looks impressive but then you look at the price. Look at it from a parents view you can buy your child a new bmx or mountain bike from a crappy shop, eg; jjd, asda and so on for about £70 if they then get into one of those sports they consider spending out for a better one so on so forth. Then look at trails a budget trials bike will come with a poor set of v-brakes but most kids will want hydrolics, so the price is a lot higher etc etc it goes on and on. basically it still isnt easily accessible for people with a limited amount oy money.

[psycholist]

The initial expense is irrelevant because you can learn the fundamentals of trials on any bike - it would be a very foolish parent indeed who forks out for a trials bike for their child if the child wasn't already pushing the limits of their normal bike... Even the cheapest of the cheap bikes now have brakes powerful enough to lock the wheels - even that couldn't be assumed from cheap bikes before V-Brakes came in, but then again I rode trials (And everything else) initially on a 19" framed Raleigh that weighed over 17kg.

Just pray you don't have to fund anyone getting into DH racing - no shortage of youngsters getting into that sport AFAIK...

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

BMX has established itself over 30yrs as a sport.

About the same as biketrials then.

I don't buy that.

"Trialsin was federated in 1981." Also here.

So yeah, that was 28 years ago, call it a year of messing around on bikes before turning it into an official sport and you've got yourself 'about the same' as your 30 years of BMX.

[Skoze]

riders in other diciplines often don't want to try out trials because the bikes are so freakish,

Big point there!

Whenever i used to go down the skatepark on my Pitbull, all my bmx mates had a go and couldn't get on with the geo of it, and these things are now considered pretty old in trials now. What would someone from another discipline, or someone from the general public think getting onto a 1100wb +60 tgs-mobile?

Same with my 609, although it feels like a 'normal' bike to me, most other people from outside of trials think it's strange and can't get on with it.

The days of people looking at trials riding and trying it on their MTBs are well over in my opinion, and anyone just having a go on a modern trials bike to see if they like it is going to be put off by the sheer strangeness of it. It's a big shame as i think it's going to hugely hinder the sport in the future, with a drop in people taking it up.

Edited March 13, 2009 by Marvin the Martian

[mr_malcolm]

i think theyre should be a lot more street orientated trials bikes around like the 24" are doing, saddles make the bikes look a lot more normall. Lower bb rise i find anything above 20 is weird and i dont like it, possibly due to only ever properly riding older style frames like the giants, pashleys etc. Personally i think around the +10 area feels nice.

[Rusevelt]

"Trialsin was federated in 1981." Also here.

So yeah, that was 28 years ago, call it a year of messing around on bikes before turning it into an official sport and you've got yourself 'about the same' as your 30 years of BMX.

Maybe, but look at global impact that Bob Haro (aka father of freestyle) had achieved for bmx in comparision to what Hans Rays did for trials. look films like BMX Bandits with Nicole Kidman, ET, and what Andy Ruffell did for uk bmx with his TV slots. Look at the countless riders of the past that pioneered the progressive tricks of the bmx ie; Ron Wilkerson, Mike Dominguez, Brian Blyther, Josh White, uk riders Neil Ruffell, Craig Campbell, Carlo Griggs and many many more that were acclaimed heroes to hundreds and thousands of riding fans worldwide. Hans Rays simply couldn't achieve that level of global impact despite some of the pioneering and crazy stunts he was doing back then like the silly huge bunnyhop he did over a small car ages ago. Edited March 13, 2009 by Rusevelt

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

*snip*

If you'd said that to start with I wouldn't have argued!

[grantham]

Jonathan Folland, lecturer in exercise physiology at the school of sport and exercise sciences at Loughborough University, believes cycling greats do have to thank their parents for a good set of genes - but cannot rely on nature's largesse alone.

Haha he's my lecturer for Kinesiology

[middleageman]

Haha he's my lecturer for Kinesiology

Really? If I may be so bold as to ask, what is your opinion of his theory?

[Phil H]

Trials is far more orientated towards precision, control and methodological movements (NOT to say bmx isn't controlled etc) and therefore seems less extreme. The risk factor in what pro bmx'ers do and what pro trials riders do is incomparable. To an audience precision and control is surely not as desirable as pure adrenaline fuelled risk taking. Perhaps I only see it from this side as a trials rider but I think it's fair to say the risks involved in trials are minimal (presumably as there is a lot of movement from static), maybe this just isn't, for want of a better word, 'sexy'.

EDIT: I have never and will never be into bmx'ing but I think it's pretty evident they are on a completely different level.

Phil

Edited March 15, 2009 by Phil H

[middleageman]

BMX = Kung Fu

Trials = Tai Chi

[Matt Vandart]

BMX = Kung Fu

Trials = Tai Chi

+1

Matt