ttspud

@B40rt Wonderful picture. Thank you for posting it. Could be next month just without the pipe and with a different hat!

Sure. The mods there were all mods which were typically applied to the bikes before 1965. If you watch any videos of the period, you will see what I mean. There was a Prestige sub-class in the earlier version, and that can be restored to the rules if there is a demand for that, as in not even allowing the mods you see there.

Well, I see. I am not sure if you were here for the very first thread on this, because in the very first post it explained this very thing, that, no, of course I am not going to be the most knowledgeable person in this sport on the history because I was born later whereas others were there. So, I openly asked for help on this forum for that very reason, more on the bikes than anything else but all aspects too, and it has taken this past 6 years to just get to the point of perhaps discussing such things as classes, let alone bikes, and we are not there yet. If it is all left to me, fair enough, but I doubt it will be in the end. Over the years, yes, I have learnt a lot about what went on, how things got here, and so on, which helps. To be fair, if this got to the point of actually becoming a set of rules, that the ACU oversaw, or another body oversaw, then yes, I would gladly put together everything necessary for clubs to know how to handle the rules, including original specs of bikes, literature about the history and so on. But we are not there yet. And I cannot commit that kind of time until we are nearer to moving in that direction, if in fact it ever does. And things will change, other ideas will happen, I am not in any way suggesting that I know all the answers, clearly I do not, however, that is why this thread is here, to find ideas about how to move forward. For example, other classic sports have a registration process to verify the bikes eligibility. That is not being suggested here, but if there is a serious desire to go in that direction for very very original bikes or whatever, then so be it. I really must work now. I appreciate the point.

Thank you.

Yes, I appreciate that. I am working right now, and trying to put some answers in in between working. I am not retired. I do not want to go spend half an hour putting all the information that you asked for onto this website when you are quite capable of going to look it up for yourself. And I do not believe that your point has any bearing whatsoever on trying to get some sport-wide rules in place whereby anyone, with whatever experience or age, is quite able to put in suggestions and help. Your question might be legitimate, but it is not really very relevant. I have just replied multiple times to Woody, I am a good day behind on work, and I need to get on, and Woody and I have just got to a very key point here, which is far more relevant than anything that has so far passed on here. If there is a link between what you are asking and the rules, then do make that point, as in " I think there needs to be that class because in 1954 there was a class X with 100 riders in it", then great, please do so. But I cannot post lots of information on 50/60s trials which is freely available for you to find.

I understand where you are coming from. I disagree. To me, not conforming to the rules is cheating, period. You believe that if something that does not conform to the rules is not hidden and the organisers do not call it out, then you see that as not cheating. I disagree, I see cheating as cheating no matter whether organisers call it out or not, hidden or not. The responsibility is both on riders and clubs. But I do agree that the club has the responsibility to call it out, I do not agree that if they do not that that is not cheating. Is cheating not disrespectful to other riders that are not cheating? Have organisers confirmed to you that their rules are not there to be conformed to because they do not see non-conformance as cheating and will not confront you because of that? Yes, that is cheating, and that is how it all started. It is not as easy to confront cheating as you might think. Riders do have responsibilty also, organisers have a lot of other responsibilities and do expect a little maturity and respect from the riders to not cheat. Really, this is a difference in our positions that means that we arrive at different conclusions. I see a problem in the non-hidden cheating, and you do not. I am pleased to have got to this point, because, after 6 years, it does make sense. Why the anger. Why the upset. Why the obstruction to something which I consider to be no great deal and fairly obvious, whereas you, not seeing non-conformity as cheating, do not. Anyway, I do appreciate the trouble that you have gone to to not be personal, to put your point across clearly and accurately. Addition: Actually, the difference in position may not really matter in the end. In other words, why not accept the two different positions ie 1) riders that do not want to conform and 2) those that do, and note that down, that is point really. In fact, having some rules as suggested, noting the two types, would help both your position, and mine.

@trialsrfun So, you are trying to make a point, but the premise of your point is faulty. In other words, whether someone is breaking the rules does not require any knowledge of anything other than the rules and the bikes. Whether someone knows about the Open entry in 1952 has no bearing on whether a bike entered into a different sport in 2021 which has a non-replica 2021 frame in a trial that means that bike does not conform to their rules today, and whether that is cheating or not. You were not really interested in the answer at all, I had already guessed that, hence the unusually brief response. Perhaps you could have a go at the very simple question, "if a bike enters a trial which does not conform to the club/event rules in any way, is that cheating?"

Great, there are some videos and discussions about it, on TrialsCentral also, start there. It is great to see it all and learn about it.

@Trialsrfun With the greatest of respect, I am not with you on that one. What is your point?

Ok, then confirm this and it will not be 'twisted' in any way; if a bike enters a trial which does not conform to the club/event rules in any way, is that cheating? That is what it boils down to. Is it cheating or not?

I will when I can. It looks great to me. I am sure there are. 60 riders is a good entry. The idea here is to protect what there is at the trials I know of, try to improve things sport-wide and go from there. Maybe nothing can be done, but maybe something can be done too.

Yes, that has been the same for many clubs. Not for the Talmag though, which has had hundreds of originals with only a 4-stroke entry. So it is not the same everywhere. The Talmag still does have lots of entries, hundreds, but it now has a lot of modified bikes that do not conform to the rules, and is losing the originals. Havering, never heard of that one, it obviously wasn't popular down south, mad scots and all! King Canute, nope! None of this matters that much, so what will be will be.

Yes, that is really common I think. If you look at many classic clubs, that is the case, lots of twinshocks, a few lightweights (Bantams etc), a very few big bikes which are very likely trick ones, and then none or a couple of originals if you are very lucky. That is the way things have gone in many clubs, no doubt about it. a new breed of classic (the Fantics etc) are really popular, reliving a childhood and so on. I do not think that that is in any way the cause of the decline of the Pre65s, rather the beginning of a new area of the sport. Nor do I think it has a bearing on the reasons for the decline in pre65. The reasons why Pre65 has lost popularity will be many, no doubt. But the rules one is one of those, and can be fixed, so that clubs that still do have original bikes can protect the entry. Otherwise, all clubs will go down that route and there will be only the twinshock (Fantic etc) and modern pre65s out there. That is the point of this, to try to do something. It is always possible to enlarge the entry criteria to enlarge the entry, allow 2-strokes, allow pre-70s, allow twinshocks or whatever. But that is not really dealing with the issue at hand for pre65 bikes, which isn't "opposite" but a totally separate issue. It is very likely that no-one will be able to increase the pre65 entry much, and certainly not quickly, and no way will the pre65 entry match the twinshock entry, but it would be nice to try to support the existing entry, and maybe hope for a few re-entrants in the years ahead.

Yes, that is great, a very noble sentiment. Unfortunately though, there is an issue which has caused and is still causing the sport to lose so many riders of these bikes, and the bikes, the one being discussed here. Possibly too many people have turned a blind eye to it in the past. Anyway, of course, get out there and enjoy it, without damaging the sport for anyone else, that would be best. I wish it were that simple.

Thanks. I guess I would like to see sport-wide rules in place to help clubs deal with the current situation, as explained throughout the thread and just above. The impact of having vastly different club rules and bikes, with no sport-wide rules, is not good. But, yes, I do wonder if I am wasting my time sometimes, why put this much effort into something that I am not personally going to see that much benefit from, but hopefully the sport will. Yes, I do ride my bike(s), I just am not interested in getting into the 'trolling' that so many here indulge in (ie off-topic messages trying to evoke and emotional response) since this is not about me, it is about the sport. When I see that the original thread is 6 years old, wow, that is amazing. Anyway, good point.