luccosleeps Posted January 15, 2006 Report Share Posted January 15, 2006 hello all,since i've recently got myself back into trials, one thing has come to my attention.... all this obsessiveness about echo, zoo! gu, adamant etc etc, and all the stock bikes i've seen all look like mods!!! and they have no seat!! whats all that about??? surely isnt it mountain bike trials?? i thought the whole idea of havin a stok is that its got a seat and is actually ridable when not trialling about. i remember back in the day when people use to modify an old low mountain bike with trials bits on it. perhaps im just abit too old skool for all these new companies coming out. i wonder if theres anyone out there that think the same or similar way to me??? any thoughts orcomplaints write back, i wanna know what peoples opinions arecheers!!jake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted January 15, 2006 Report Share Posted January 15, 2006 Back in the day, pros were doing moves that are now considered amateur/intermediate though. Times change. I know it's not all about the bike and that stuff, but I'm near certain that today's top riders couldn't do the stuff they're doing if they had the older-style setups. It's just the way that trials frames have evolved so they've now got more standover height and no seats, and have different geometry to "conventional" mountain biking frames. It's not necessarily a bad thing though. Why limit trials just to have a seat? Seems a bit pointless, really? If you think about the amount of riders around now running seatless frames, they still get from spot-to-spot fine anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luccosleeps Posted January 15, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2006 perhaps its just me then really, i mean im all for evolution but i know if i wanna travel anywhere when moving to the nect spot i wanna be able to sit down and cruise my way down in (kindof) comfort, plus if u ever did come off your bike and land on your nads, i know i'd rather slap 'em on a softish seat than a solid steel/alu frame. also i quite like the look stock bikes with seats because it actually looks like a bike you could ride about normally. i suppose i'll just have to live with it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 Im the same, after a break of 4 years im not a fan of long low and silver, having said that, my bike is silver, and it doesnt have a seat, but it is a mod so it looks f**ked up anyway. If I had a stock, i'd want a seat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simpson Posted January 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 i mean im all for evolution It is an evolution, how do you expect people to sidehop on bikes and get that tuck with a high frame and saddle? you just couldnt! trials is moving on ive just moved to a bike without a saddle yea it kinda pisses me off not sitting and cant sit on rear wheel due to chunky booster so just rest your bike and sit down on something bit of a pain, yea, but soooooo worth it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Bleech Posted January 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 Back in the day, pros were doing moves that are now considered amateur/intermediate though. Times change. I know it's not all about the bike and that stuff, but I'm near certain that today's top riders couldn't do the stuff they're doing if they had the older-style setups. It's just the way that trials frames have evolved so they've now got more standover height and no seats, and have different geometry to "conventional" mountain biking frames. It's not necessarily a bad thing though. Why limit trials just to have a seat? Seems a bit pointless, really? If you think about the amount of riders around now running seatless frames, they still get from spot-to-spot fine anyway?and the same time the other newest evolution is 24" , which 90% of people do/want to run a seat.but as for stocks, i agree its just evolution it allows the sport to grow and limits to be pushed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeZee Posted January 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 Look at Ryan Leech.... He manages perfectly with what kinda looks more like a dirt jumpers bike than a trials bike (complete with a seat )He manages some massive sidehops, and all the gap, taps and tricks you want. You Don't NEED a magic new bike to do stuff, thats just an excuse. Its not evolution by any stretch of the imagination. Its just ease of use and weight saving. I appreciate not having a seat on my stock, cos I always smack my leg on them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aff1e Posted January 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 i think al stocks look better now than before, any way the seats are that small why would you want to sit on it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davetrials Posted January 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 Look at Ryan Leech.... He manages perfectly with what kinda looks more like a dirt jumpers bike than a trials bike (complete with a seat )He manages some massive sidehops, and all the gap, taps and tricks you want. You Don't NEED a magic new bike to do stuff, thats just an excuse. Its not evolution by any stretch of the imagination. Its just ease of use and weight saving. I appreciate not having a seat on my stock, cos I always smack my leg on them.bu ryan cant get 55" id like to see anyone do it on a bike the size of his. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeZee Posted January 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 bu ryan cant get 55"Fair enough, he only does 44", but is that cause he rides a stock? or is it just the highest he can go as a person?All I'm saying is that ryan leech manages to ride trials to a world class standard on his mountain bike frame... complete with seat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Bleech Posted January 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 (edited) Fair enough, he only does 44", but is that cause he rides a stock? or is it just the highest he can go as a person?All I'm saying is that ryan leech manages to ride trials to a world class standard on his mountain bike frame... complete with seat i would say that the bike is limiting to a degree, it easier to tap on a longer bike and he could go higher with one. but then if he did ride a longer 'more uci' bike then other aspects of his riding would suffer. it a compromise you have to make really... Edited January 16, 2006 by leedstrials Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davetrials Posted January 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 Fair enough, he only does 44", but is that cause he rides a stock? or is it just the highest he can go as a person?All I'm saying is that ryan leech manages to ride trials to a world class standard on his mountain bike frame... complete with seat dunno but ive seen stock riders do 53" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_PRO Posted January 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 Bikes have come a long way, alot more bikes have no seats now, which is ok for mod bikes but not for stock bikes, stock bikes should stick to having seats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtisRider Posted January 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 seats on stocks for sure, i love having mine, it looks feckin class trouble is you have to spend time and money on a good seatpost and seat combo, if they are all high and chubby looking, they look gash, but a nice low profile slim seat looks lovelyi dont care if it 'limits' my sidehops though or whatever, cos i doubt i will ever get a bike that high thing is, its all personal preference, i do think the clean lines of seatless bikes do make them look rather cool, and it saves weight, but having a mini seat as a comprimise just looks shit, i cant believe i ever ran 1 now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poopipe Posted January 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 Anyone who's had the pointy end of a plastic bmx seat up the wrongun when they failed a no footer will appreciate the lack of seat and low standover height. I can slip pedals and land on my knees and still not crack my gonads on the toptube cos of all this newfangled low long and (in my case) green business.That's not to say there aren't disadvantages to having no seat - seats are handy for getting a bit of extra stability, I didnt realise how much I leant against the one on my old da bomb till I rode without it for a while.Looks? I think stocks look stupid anyway - the wheels are far too big and they have all those silly extra cogs and dangly bits at the back that keep falling off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Shrewsbury Posted January 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 (edited) I look back at all the oldskool gear and think. F...k me that stuff is old, but still looks great.I love riding 24inch, not just because its a wicked bike, but because it brings back abit of oldskool, and having the rite kind of seat makes 24,26inch look great too.Ill hopefully gonna hav a 26inch oldskool bike setup for koxx days, as i want to ride rocks and street.Oldskool has'nt died Edited January 16, 2006 by John Shrewsbury Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luccosleeps Posted January 16, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 im glad there are still people out there that think the same kinda way as me, but then i can also see other people's point of views on the seatless stocks but for i definately like having a seat, makes my bike look proper, and i don't find my seat ristricting in any way so i will be sticking with it, just can't wait till i snap my saracen so i can get me a nice leeson frame now thats what you call a decent frame! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Bleech Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 just look at ackrigg on that bag o' shite mongoose, he kicks ass on that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlynnP Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 If you are a old skool rider have you heard of trials-uk.com james ritchie is the main guy and him and ross tucker think exactly the same as you they dont like echos,zoo,gu. they are both riding leesons with about the best trials bike i think they r lovely to ride. mind you saying that i was riding an echo but if i rode stock wood get a leeson any day.leeson has more of the old skool style/look to it but with up to date parts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krisboats Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 I'm also another person who likes to have a seat. i get why people would like to have no seat but at the same time i think it looks more stupid for bikes that have a perfectly good seat tube to run those crappy little plastic excuses for seats. In my opinion many otherwise nice looking bikes are ruined by an out of place plastic scoop that is put on instead of a seat.I do reckon my next frame will be seatless, and long because i'm really tall. but i don't think i will go with the whole silver malarky, royal blue or something like that would be nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.