Yellow line:- B grade, T3 or Trial 3

[yamfan]

Next to what came first the chicken or the egg (When we all know its the nest) Grade severity is the hardest question to answer. Everybody's interpretation of the severity is based on so many factors like: The current state skill level of those in that grade, the lowest and highest common denominator in that grade, where the Trial is to be set and the weather.
Using the 3x easy, 3x medium, 3x hard principle is a good guide with the 3 easy being doable by a rider from a lower grade and the 3x hard set around the level of the 3x easy of the next grade.
Here in WA Trials is booming with 80-90 riders being common place with 15 riding Black (beginning to end no markers), 25 Trial 5, 20 T4, 6 T3, 5 T2, 3 T1. So as everybody has pointed out it is a pretty bottom heavy field below T 3.
When I set for T 3 I believe they should be able to do at least basic hops, basic nose wheelies and be able to carry the front wheel off a log they can't roll off. For our T4 riders I believe there are possibly 3 or 4 riders that have or should reach my T 3 criteria in the next season or two.
So what's the answer for WA if we want to produce another Kyle or Neil in the next 5 years? I would say we carry on the same way we are already are in setting WA Trials. Our Black plate over the last 3 Years has gone from 2 to over 15 which is awesome and I would say our T5 severity has only increased slightly which is surprising.
Does WA need a T4+ C+? I would say no, a rider in C should be pretty capable of static balancing, 60cm + logs and the occasional hop our T4 scores vary from 20 for the seasoned Vet to 100 for the crash and bash brigade who are the ones who will put in the off Trial Practice in.
I remember the nice segmented graph put out by MA on the introduction of T1 _ T5 explaining the nice incremental steps that need to be taken for consistency......A week later certain Eastern States had already stuck a T4+ into the mix.

[gricey]

yamfan, would you say that the top end of your T4 riders could comfortably/safely ride your 3 x 'easy' T3 lines? Or would it still be a stretch?

[Mickz]

I rarely get involved in these topics but as this involves myself, Here is my two cents.

With all these people trying to dumb down or make B Grade / T3 easier have you ever considered that the people
currently riding the lines don't have an issue with it, and currently enjoy the difficulty level of it.

So what if we have high scores. I have had no issue in taking a 5 or not riding a section for what ever reason.

If you are not currently riding it, why would you attempt to change it?

What would be achieved in making it easier, just so you could ride it?

Where does it stop, Do we make T2 and T1 easier as the number of riders riding these are dwindling?


I honestly feel that the people constantly whinging about sections, every event.
Should get out of the comfort of their arm chairs and come and set sections the day before an event.
Generally there is only a handful of dedicated people in Vic setting sections before a VTS round. ( Who do an outstanding Job some times in the harshest conditions)

Leave T3 where it is, If its too hard for you take a 5 or ride another grade.

[bikerpete]

Interesting discussion you've started here @winesy

I'm one of your "transitional" T4 to T3 riders. I rode a bit of trials in the '70's then didn't swing a leg over a dirt bike (nothing more than a posty bike) for nearly 40 years. 4 or 5 years ago I started dabbling again. Probably rode 10 events in T4/C & T4+/C+, probably not scoring much lower than 20-30 I guess, then decided I wanted to ride T3/B before I got too old. So this year I've been riding T3.

Yes, it was a bit of a jump. Yes, it is sometimes intimidating. But overall it's not such a big deal. So far I haven't voluntarily taken a 5 on a section (lots involuntarily!) but I certainly have it as an option in my mind. At 60 I'm not keen to beat myself up anymore.
I'm lucky to score in 2 digits much of the time but so what? Riding T3 at all is more of a win than riding T4 with just a couple of points as far as I'm concerned.

So I'm not too sure that the jump T4 - T3 is too big. Yes it's a goodly step up in challenge, for sure.

I'm inclined to think it's got more to do with the average age of riders and the time they have to practice.

T3's that I've ridden in Vic can mostly be done without hops, just a few sections really need them and if you can't hop (like me) then it only adds another point or two in a couple of sections. There's been very few obstacles that were really likely to result in a bad crash if you failed - they aren't that big generally.

So if that's the case, what stops people moving up?
Maybe some just like winning so stay in T3.
As someone else said here, T3 does require a bit more technique with clutch - that's as it should be, it wouldn't be a stepping stone to T2 without that element. But that skill doesn't happen without time on the bike, focused on developing that skill. I'm no great shakes at this as my scores over 100 attest, but it's taken me hundreds of hours to get to the point I'm at now. I wonder how long that would take the average person trying to fit riding in around work, family etc.? A long time I reckon, and there lies the main reason T4 remains full and T3 empty. I would point out though that at Top Naas there was a young fella competing T3 on an OSET. That says better than anything that you don't need really great clutch skills at T3 level!

I'm not entirely convinced the solution is lowering the level of T3.
My experience is that most events have a reasonable mix of easier and harder sections, and some events are just all round a little easier, or at least a little less intimidating than others - Glenmaggie and Top Naas come to mind, which makes a lot of sense given the style of event they are. Interestingly I don't think even those events get a significantly higher percentage of T3 riders?

I certainly can't comment on whether the gap between T4 & T3 is equivalent to the gap between T3 & T2, or T2 & T1. I know I'll never be riding T2 though! I tend to think the gap between T5 and T4 is at least as big as T4 to T3.

I do think that having two umbrella organisations is not helpful, splitting the already small field of riders somewhat. I can see the arguments for different clubs going with one or the other, but in the big picture it's not beneficial. It would be far better if one organisation could service the needs of all, but that seems incredibly unlikely any time soon.
I've been a member of both MA and AMA this year, but it's just been an inconvenience and added expense from my rider perspective. It's also been abundantly obvious that event attendance has been more split along affiliation lines than previously - that's not a good outcome and is going to impact riders gaining experience and confidence to move up I think.
But I get it - for a club with grounds and a large number of members who aren't frequent competitors the MA model just doesn't really work compared to AMA.

I'm only new to the sport really, so I have no clue if there has been "class creep" or not, but from the campfire stories I've heard it always was a pretty big jump C to B grade.

I dunno how to get more people into T3, but I suspect just dropping the level isn't the key.