Originally Posted by LowPSI
In order to move the conversation forward and away from "no stop is freakin dumb" let's talk riding techniques.
Stop vs No Stop is a trade off in techniques. What skills and techniques are lost vs what is gained between the two riding styles?
Seems like this thread needs to switch to decaf...
I have a small downhill log in my yard that I set up to attempt to overcome my *issues* with downhill logs. I noticed the other day that if I stop before placing the front wheel on the log that it is a LOT easier than doing it "no-stop." Entirely psychological (I'm a wimp), but very real for me.
I'm not sure what that means, really. Seems to me that if no-stop makes it harder, a smaller log can be as challenging as a larger one that I'd have to stop for. Not really sure if it's enough of a difference to say that one is safer than the other, but on the whole, I get the logic behind no stop allowing for smaller obstacles. Without set up time and/or the ability to place your bike perfectly, smaller and safer stuff is equally challenging. I get that appeal re: no-stop.
Another example: While practicing with a bunch of riders (all better than me) a couple of weeks ago, we were attempting a small uphill, sharp turn, up a rooty climb little section. After several attempts, I was able to clean it, but I stopped (balancing) several times. I couldn't seem to do it without stopping.
I pointed out earlier that I have only ridden no-stop so far so I don't have a lot to go on. That said, the more I think about it and practice, I find that I do enjoy being able to stop. But I still think that stopped with a foot on the ground should be a 5. That is, IMO, not riding. Even worse to me is repositioning the bike with a foot on the ground. But then I don't know anything about how or why rules have evolved to be what they are today. I just know what seems logical to me as a 1-season trials newb.