bulltaco

Ouch !, bet these last two posts got him where it hurts eh?. Or did they?. You see, I've worked out now that the "trialscot" posts are coming from at least two, probably three and possibly even four sources , none of them as wet behind the ears as they'd like us to think. In fact one of them might even be an ex-scottish champion in one branch of bike sport. I think these guys sit over a dram occasionally, going on about the old days and setting up these posts with tongues firmly in cheeks to see who's daft enough to rise to the bait. So maybe we shouldn't take them too seriously, even though the points made are usually very valid ones?.

Was half thinking of perhaps a lightweight Triumph twin or maybe a C15, I'm fairly "well-built"!. I've discovered that Faber, Otter and Macdonald frames are not acceptable for the pre-65 SSDT 2-day, although standard frames converted to OIF are OK.

Yes well I'm sure we all agree that the person who sits back and criticises the best efforts of others is a right pain in the a*** but in fairness we don't know trialscots background on this one. I also can't quite grasp the point that he/she is getting at but there's no doubt that alleged "fiddling", "cheating"," partisan observing", call it what you will, is becoming more blatant all the time. We had threads on it about the SSDT, WTC and now the scottish championship. A couple of youngsters who joined our club last year and rode one or two trials even asked the club secretary why she got all the scores wrong in the championship tables in the club newsletter. Riders mark their own cards at our closed to club trials and these lads couldn't understand the low recorded scores of all the guys they'd ridden round with and seen falling off so many times. Having re-read Ts's post I'd have to agree though that press ganging inexperienced bystanders into observing at a championship trial isn't really the way to do it. Too much dodgy observing at championship rounds must devalue that championship to some extent. I suppose it comes down to the attitude of the ACU/SACU steward at an event, if he's satisfied with second rate organisation then the situation will be self-perpetuating.

Thanks OTF, that's the sort of info that's worth a great deal. Obviously talking to other competitors is a short cut but unfortunately the pre-65 scene here in Scotland is almost non-existent, although Pat Urqhuart runs some very enjoyable CRMCC events.

I know Serco is the place for Cub engine work but who's the guru on frame/fork mods. And who supplies parts and info for trials Triumph unit twins and BSA C15s/B40s?.

Nigel, Many thanks for your info, as soon as I saw your post I phoned to pledge the exchange of 400 drinking vouchers for the bike in question and I'm just home after a very long round trip to pick it up. Apart from the knackered shocks and fork seals and the Dulux paint job it's a cracker. It is definitely a Comerfords modded bike and from the information in the books and magazines that came with it I reckon it was the 5th last Sherpa ever to be made (Sherpa T - the story, a spanish book, says that 1778 six-speeders were made) and this one is well up in the four hundreds for the serial numbers. It is also pretty certain that OTFs Sherpa is a standard bike, I've seen the swinging arm he mentions, I think it's on the 198B 250cc as well. I also think that Don Morley in Spanish Trials Bikes might have thrown a red herring in by saying that the Mick Whitlock swinging arms were rectangular, it seems as you say that they were the oval ones, also with the M10 threaded socket welded on like the susp. unit upper mountings. Thanks again, I'll be in touch for that photo.

Does anyone know the frame numbering sequence for the 340 Sherpas modified by Comerfords?. I saw a 340 recently that looked like and was claimed to be a Comerfords bike. It had the forward top mountings for the rear shocks and the larger s/a mounting plates to take the swinging arm forward to within a few mm of the engine casing but the swinging arm itself was of heavy oval tube and I thought they had rectangular ones made by Whitehawk. Or maybe that was an extra?. How many 340s were made in total?.

Does anyone know the frame numbering sequence for the 340 Sherpas modified by Comerfords?. I saw a 340 recently that looked like and was claimed to be a Comerfords bike. It had the forward top mountings for the rear shocks and the larger s/a mounting plates to take the swinging arm forward to within a few mm of the engine casing but the swinging arm itself was of heavy oval tube and I thought they had rectangular ones made by Whitehawk. Or maybe that was an extra?. How many 340s were made in total?. Sorry, must have pushed the go button twice or something, maybe Andy can remove this post, please.

I agree with Bikespace on this one and for the same reasons. The TY80 has stood the test of time and fashion. Several of our family learned to ride on one and when it was eventually passed on to another youngster they all had a tear in their eyes. My neighbour has just bought one for his 10 year old daughter so here comes another generation benefiting from the TY80. As for full size bikes "of their time" there can be no dispute that the first Sherpa brought the lightweight revolution in the mid 60s. It certainly made overnight experts of many riders but was it the "best" when quality control was so often abysmal?. Depends what your judging criteria are I suppose. If you're looking at british/world success in the late 70s/early 80s, just before the monos came in, then maybe the last Sherpas, especially the 340s, were the "best" of that time although they don' fit YDs criteria of "revolutionary". The Yam monos certainly brought the revolution to monoshock but whether that made them the best of their time is debatable.

Check the Lochaber clubs website - www.motorcyclinggb.co.uk/club/lochaber Do we have some clowns jeopardising this part of the SSDT route?.

Interesting feedback on this one, many thanks. I was really asking out of curiosity as someone said it couldn't be done physically, which sounded like bull to me. BJ where do you find the pre-65/twinshock rules you mention, can't see much in the 2004 ACU handbook unless it's covered by the "major components" bit on the Sammy Miller Championship?. But in that case couldn't the bike enter as a "special" according to the handbook. If not, what's Nigel D doing messing about with his Sherpa?. Or is it just a fun project Nigel?.

Why can't a modern Montesa tubeless rear rim be built onto a Cub/Bantam/Sherpa etc. rear hub?.

Regs available for download at www.motorcyclinggb.co.uk/club/lochaber

Starts at the school this year and runs out the back of Loch Eilde and back along the hill road. Works out by GPS at 18.5km so they shouldn't have fuel problems this time.

No need to put down someone not quite as articulate as yourself, Big John. I suspect fatbikedude refers to trialscots' comment that in scotland there is no standardised system of upgrading laid down by the SACU for every club to use. This does mean, as trialscot suggests, that the potential for upgrading ( or retaining Expert status) in scotland depends on the awards listed by promoting clubs in their supplementary regs. Since some clubs still list first class awards to the top 15% of finishers, some only list a winner and runner up and some list no awards at all, upgrading in scotland is a hit or miss affair. Add to this the fact that most scottish trials have at least two routes and that there appears to be nothing in the SACU regulations about who rides what to get grading credits (again it seems to be left to individual clubs to decide this) and the situation does become a little ridiculous. I had a long conversation recently with a guy who had checked things out and he reckoned that a novice could win a championship trial and not be upgraded from novice if the club had decided to give no awards, while a non expert winning a "best club member" award in 20th place in another trial could get a grading credit towards expert status. I don't know if what I was told is correct but if it is, it must be a powerful argument for the introduction of a proper system of upgrading in scotland. As someone above said, at least the Yorkshire lads know what they are aiming at when they enter a trial, if they are looking for upgrading.

I got it at the ACU site- "Clubs" then bookmarked it. Pretty sure this is it:- www.motorcyclinggb.co.uk/club/lochaber

Just noticed a new item on the Lochaber website, with the SACU Trials Committee Chairman explaining to them the reason for the enforcement of this rule this year. I can't see how observers, officials or spectators for that matter can use the numbers to know who's who riding in the event unless they are given a list of riders and riding numbers. The only trial I've ever observed at where we were all given such a thing was actually the Lochaber Pollock, the only person who must be given such a list is the SACU Steward. Likewise I can't see anything to stop an unlicenced hanger-on painting"123" on the front of his bike and looking official!. Like several others, I can't help wondering if there has been some particular incident involving rider identification last year. There is, of course, absolutely no reason for riders not to comply with the enforcement of this rule, it's just that some of the riders I've overheard seem to find the reasons for enforcing it rather wooly!. Or is it just a re-surfacing of Scottish competitors old paranoia and suspicion of anything handed down by the SACU trials committee?.

Not really a new rule surely Bigfoot?. Hasn't it been in the Standing Regs issued with the comp. licence for donkeys years, they're just hoping to enforce it this year. I wonder just who "requested" this?. There are now 3 versions of this news on trialscentral - Inverness and the SACU have/had it on the front page and Lochaber had this one on their website on Sunday. The 3 versions are all ever so slightly different. Johnny Davies last sentence is completely at variance with the SACU post which states that the only exceptions are for the SSDT and the Pre-65 S2DT. I often get roped in to observe at Nationals up and down the country and I didn't think that the Scottish trials scene was so big that we don't know one another!. My big problem, especially at Championship trials, is in knowing before a rider enters a section which route he is supposed to be riding. Inverness and Lochaber have good systems of riding cards denoting "A" route riders but down the country there is a big problem and I know of riders in Central Belt trials being allocated high Championship points although they were riding the "B" route at that particular event. Probably the best solution I have seen is at the Pollock at Lochaber. They issue riding numbers in the starting order. Competitors on the "A" route have their numbers printed neatly in black on bright yellow card which is then laminated for durability and punched, to be fixed to the bike with cable ties which the club provide. "B" route riders get similar cards but with a white background. To top it off observers get, in their goodie bag of food and drink, a sheet of paper and a pen to record any problems.