Wasnt going to bother answering but thought i had better before another round of character assasination atempts so. Agreed none of the items mentioned were available before December 31st 1964 but does it matter? Some of the parts, take domino levers or any other similar pattern levers, are just sensible mods as if you snap an Amal perch then they are a bugger to replace and saves time out on the moors not really a performance advantage. Bit like using Sherco mudguard braces although they do improve the fork action .
To answer the accusations that people pick on this one trial a year and not others was answered in part by Woody in his post above. I dont feel i'm "picking on" anybody BTW. I doubt that the 5 riders mentioned deliberately tried to contraviene the eligability criteria it's more than probable that like a lot of people they dont really understand what the eligability critera are. They like most of us just looked at photos of previous competitiors in this trial and built a bike similar, in their eyes, to what they saw. OK if you are daft enough to fit a Bultaco front brake youre asking for it but is that different to people riding unchallenged in previous years using Grimica hubs with the little ribs machined off to disguise them and resemble Rickman ones? they werent excluded or banned. Then again i cant find any mention of a ban for future years for an eligability infringement. You cant just apply retroactively rules as you see fit can you???
OK why does the Scottish 2 day always inspire such passionate discourse especially about the subject of eligability? Well because most people realise that unless you build a "pre65", god i hate that term, bike to be eligable for the event is value is severely deminished and becomes almost unsellable. That shouldnt be an issue because unbelieveably there are 51 other weekends of the year that you can ride a British Bike that is NOT Scottish eligable but thats the way it is. You see because the two main governing bodies refuse to grasp the nettle and publish a comprehensive set of construction rules that we could all work to everbody applies their own interpretation to the eligability rules as published which we all know are not the same version that is applied in practice.
The only other club i know of personally that has grasped the nettle and tried their level best to publish a workable set of eligability critera is Yorkshie Classic and they are very successful. I dont understand some of them but that is not important. Their rules were voted for by their members and they have a "specials" class for all bike that do not comply and they dont seem to get any problems.
I am not saying their rules are better than any others but i am saying theirs are more comprehensive and make a damn sight more sense than the published ones for the Scottish 2 day.
If the ACU and AMCA finally came up with a set of rules would it change anything re the Scottish 2 day situation? doubt it as the are not members but are governed by the SACU and what with devolution on the horizon then their trial will be governed by whatever criteria they choose to adopt. Thats fine by me but this debate will always rear it's ugly head until a proper, comprehensive and more importantly workable set of rules are published for anybody hoping for an entry to see and build a bike to conform to.
Heres a thought? If GOV 132 entered this year i am pretty sure the organisers would be delighted and give the bike an entry however would that be in line with the published eligability criteria? especially when so many bikes have been excluded for "modifications" deemed unaceptable. Just a thought anyway probably would be uncompetitive against some of the 2012 Ariels
Incidentally a period of stability instead of altering and tinkering behind the scenes each year wouldnt help.
Finally before my merry band of detractors say that i only criticise and never offer anything like a workable option hers mine.
1. A minimum weight limit measured at scrutineering before accessing the ramp. Subject to class variations.
2. A maximum ground clearence limit measured by putting the bike on a box of specified height when both wheels must just touch the floor at the same time with front and rear suspension fully extended. Subject to class variations.
3. A minimum wheelbase length. Subject to class variations.
4. A maximum front fork leg and rear suspension unit length measured at the same time as the ground clearence limit.
Any bike NOT complying to this and or other criteria should be in a "Specials" class as Yorkshire Classic do and most successful it is too. Incidentally i am not a member of Yorkshire Classic it's just that they are a very influential club in my area and do publish openly their eligability criteria.
Well it seems to me you have double standards, and blowing hot and cold??
So what your saying is that 2 riders, same ability are on the same marks dropped and one of them has domino and the other amal levers and they both fall off and damage there levers, and the amal rider gets more marks for being late than the domino rider, and that's fair. I know it's a bit of an exreme example but it could happen, do you think Mr amal levers would be happy chap (no)
So as a few of you have said it's just about the 5 riders excluded, so is it just speculation again on why they were excluded, lets have some facts about the reasons behind why they were excluded then it might be worth a discussion? but to guess and make things up surely thats wrong. We might even find out one of them turned with a gas gas front end !!!! but I doubt it, lets just wait and get facts not fiction.
And yes Yorkshire classic have got it right, I'm a member of that club and it's great to ride with them, if you think they are so good, you should have taken a leaf out their book 2 routes then classes to match easy for everyone.
Good comments, and yes Alan is a nice chap but I didn't buy the frame for that reason, like you I'm a novice rider but wanted to build the best bike I could within my budget, and I'm sure you would be able to enter if you decided to build a bike like one of the winners, when I rode, Steve Saunders won and I would not have liked to have riden his bike, I finished 59th on my James and I'm sure it would have been far worse than that riding on his bike, and I rode round with him on the 2nd day so seen it in action.
I agree this is a place for discussion on pre65 but not a place to slag off particular trials just because they don't fit into certain peoples beliefs of what pre65 is.
But joking aside with OTF if we look seriously at what is pre65 how far do we take it? So can OTF answer these questions, and lets for arguements sake leave engines and frames out for a moment, the questions are what was available in pre65.
1. IRC tyres
2. Renthal handle bars the modern ones we all use
3. Brake linings now used
4 Domino throttle
5. Domino levers
6. Gas Gas bash plates modified to fit
7. Honda kick starts
8. Beta gear levers
I could go on and on I don't know all the answers, but I doubt any of these are pre65.
What irritates me is why do certain people pick on one trial year after year and won't let it go?
This is like the arguement over originality, you could argue that a bike has lost it's originality when you change it's tyre or brakes?
Some engines have Kawasaki clutches fitted but because we cannot see them is it right?
I believe if a club has it's rules we should respect them and if we don't agree with them then don't ride with that club, but don't ridicule them year after year.
I don't slag Peak Classic off because I don't agree with the classes there trickshox, brit bike etc etc I go and enter the class I think I should be in and ride to enjoy it and what ever class I'm in I try to compete against everyone.
Hope that explains some of the banter which has gone on here
And for OTFs info my name is Paul Edwards and if he mentions me to Pete Carson, Pete will explain more.
Very well said, I think Mr Beswick has been on the Blue Nun again, you should really suggest a very nice Spanish wine, ho ho not long until Christmas!!!
hondars250 you make some good points, some people will always find something to moan and whinge about!
If the trial was so bad why do they need a ballot for 80+ riders, Surly nobody would enter?????
Why not congratulate the club for hosting a classic entry, and if you don’t like it you know what to do!
Hi monty-jon
Thanks and yes the club should be congratulated, I've even helped the year I did it and there's a hell of a lot of work goes into it and then the wingers get going, talk about being kicked when your down
But the few that feel that there blood is boiling over what The Few are saying are missing the point compleatly.
OK What gets my gander is that what happens, and what is aloud to pass as Pre 65 in this one trial is then passed down for the rest of the year as the norm for every other Pre 65 trial. It is then term Pre 65 that is wrong the term should not be used anymore for this trial.
I have on the bench at the moment the bike that won the 350 award in 2000, and is being rebuilt as it was ridden then. This bike had a Hubbo BSA frame that was built on the same frame jig as the Mick Mills frames, and was lent to the builder by the same. This bike had Four stud BSA forks fitted , and REH hubs. This bike today would not be accepted by the rules of today? So the goal posts have moved again.
I purchased the Faber frame in good faith, thinking that it was now OK for the event, but now find out that it may not be. So the goal posts have moved again.i have sent mails for conformation about this frame but have not had a reply.
I have now found a company in the West Country that build a frame for a Cub engine that is a copy of the super Cub frame. And it looks like a Bantam, but would this be allowed ?
I was taking a look at the 2010 Dave Thorpe Cub on pipeline , and this bike sported a Armac subframe, but this seems to be now allionated,? But I don't know as the person I asked has not given me an answer.
I will now submit an entry on the 1961 C 15T BSA and see what happens?
Regards Charlie.
Hi
Being in the 20% is nothing to be proud of really is it? I'm quite open minded, but you seem to be tared with the same brush as OTF small minded and a basic trouble maker on here because it seems to be only you 2 causing problems, or should I say inventing them, as of yet I have not seen any hard evidence just speculation of general rubbish. Are you also sure 100% that the Armac frame you saw was actually an armac because I've altered cub frames and they have been mistaken for other peoples frames including Armac could this have been done in the 60s?? we will never know.
It does not matter what's on your bench does it, because if you want to enter the Scottish PRE65 just do as I've already said look at what you've got/want to ride and if you answer yes to the questions, get it entered and best of luck to you and if you get in enjoy it for what it is, not what you want it to be.
Question if your quote is to be taken as the general view why oh why do we have a forum at all?
The five people excluded , which after all is why we are having this discussion, were caught pushing the envelope, one ridiculously so, but would have been welcome to ride at almost every "classic" trial for the other 363 days of the year. No prob they got caught their fault.i just feel that i wonder how anybody can submit their bike for entry and feel they will be judged eligable on the PUBLISHED reg as against the "whim" of whoever "scrutineers" (sic) the event.
Not that anybody will believe it but i think every serious "pre65", LOL, rider i.e. people who ride "pre65" week in week out, as against those who just ride the event as a one off , should have ridden it at least once in their trials life. All i would like is transparency and clarity accross the entire entry and even handedness in the application of the "rules" across the entire entry.
Some of you live in a very subservient "respect your betters" world. You are welcome to it. The event will always be oversubscribed so NOTHING said on here matters. They could say every bike must be red and people would comply .
Good luck to everybody who enters the lottery and i hope you have a great time. It is a great event but it's NOT the be all and end all of Classic trials in the UK.
Oh and before anybody says it neither are the events i organise.
Keep on tugging your forelock. LOL
OTF
Well I think you must have had 2 or 3 glasses of the vino to many before replying Dutch courage eh!! and you have just confirmed that your not a wind up merchant?
I don't really know what your rant is must be the vino talking??
But if it's the 5 riders being excluded so what they lied on the entry form tough, I would not have even let them ride! so what was it exactly exclude for or are you just having a stab in the dark trying to ruffle a few feathers.
And yes I have been to your trials several times, next time I'll introduce myself and we will see if you can talk face to face but keep off the wine or what ever you drink just to keep it sensible.
This must be eating away at you, you must try to chill a bit.
If the riders who want to ride PRE65 in Scotland if they follow the rules set down there should be no issue at all, but if the decide to lie on the entry form that's their problem not mine or yours, and you will always get people who will have a little push to see how far or much they can get away with, it human nature.
Hope I didn't sound biiter just really angry that some people just keep nit picking all the time.
I've just been told to read the girls allowed forum Sandra Gomez and that made my blood boil and it seems to be the same people all the time.
I cannot remember who said 20% of the people cause 80% of the problems? I think it was Perito ( spelling ??) or he came up with the 80-20 theory, but it's true here??
As I said before I don't want to know any of the riders names as it does not bother me who rides or not and on what, because my view is that the top riders would beat most of us if we where on monos? and as for your adage I'm certianly not in any in crowd or I would not be speaking my mind on here. A good saying is "it's far easier to be critical than correct" and a lot of that goes on here.
I feel sorry for the people like jon V8 having to read this, the best advice I can give is send an entry in, if you get a ride, go and enjoy one of the best trials in the UK, and when it's all over make your own mind up about the people who run it and ride it?
Hi OTF
Excuss me for being forward, but you must be a wind up merchant or a complete idiot. The things you say on here can be quite offensive, and you of all people should be aware of the work put in to run and organise a trial and then to be slagged off by the 3-4 moaners on here. Let me ask you a question do you know a 100% that the ballot is for 80 riders or less, I thought the only riders to not be in the ballot were last years winners? I don't think it's people wearing blinkers it's just people who don't bother to read something into something that's not there. It's easy to say " I'm not bother about light wieght frames etc etc BUT" also it seems easier for some people to discuss things, make opinions or make false statements looking at a computer screen and typing away without any consiquence but cannot speak face to face with anyone when at a trial.
Sorry if I've offended you but unlike you I am willing to discuss these matters face to face and not hide behind a computer screen.
What you've got to remember is that people see things differently, as for me when I did the Scottish 2 years ago, I seen it as a great trial with great people running it and riding in it, I'm not a pre65 guru so didn't notice any cheating etc and it leaves a bad taste when people like you seem to have a dig every year with the same old same old, very sad!
I can't really comment on your niggles because we don't know the who's and what's etc, but I'll take your word for it, but if it was me i would not let it eat away at me, because if they have done something wrong and got away with it good luck to them. But when they get caught they won't be surprised if they are excluded. Also if you don't care about the rules or the trial why are you getting so wound up, it is really simple as B40rt said PRE65 DESIGN. So to your second point a cub if I had a cub as you have discribed above I wouldn't have a problem entering it as long as the mods, frame swaps were available in 64 or before, simple enter the bike as long as no lies are told what's the problem. the only thing I can see is that if you were to use a cub engine in a cub frame then it would have to be a swan neck but if you changed the frame from a cub one then it should be ok again I'm getting bored now, simple enter the bike.
The biggest problem is people reading things into it which are not there and creating problems when they should be keeping there mouths shut, riding and enjoying it!
The last thing is, it can't be that bad because out of say 500 entries ish for 180 places their are only 3 or 4 complaining about it???
Well the answer is in the question really, it has to be "pre65 design" therefore if the hubs are off Mr Whitton and are of pre65 design there's the answer, now if I put bultaco hubs in the wheels from 70s or 80s then I'm asking for trouble? and if your getting at originallity then that's another subject which can be discussed at great length another time!
If your otter frame is a replica of the original then I would not feel guilty of putting 63 or what date it was originally manufactured on the entry form as long as your happy it's PRE65 DESIGN again it's simple really, tick the boxes and answer the questions it's not to difficult even I managed it? so no lying as long as it's pre65 design, if I'm not sure I will always ask someone in the know like Alan Whitton or any of the Yorkshire classic lads only because I'm relatively new to the trials scene ecspecially the pre65 one.
I've read this with interest and also with a bit of disappointment, it sounds as if the bitching has started early?? by the regular crew of course!!
Just to try and make the process simple, if I was going to enter the Scottish pre65. What would I do???
1. I would see where I could get the regs, in my case I would down load them off the Yorkshire classic web site
2. Read them, so what do they say.
3 Frame pre65 design only, so my FB does meet this requirement( even tho it's a whitton)
4. Engine gearbox, yes ok it's a villiers.
5. carb, yes it's a MK1 so again ok so far?
6 Front forks yes ok norton sliders with 35mm internals
7. Wheels, fitted with tubeless rims with tubes fitted so ok
8. So to the entry form I can fill in all of the 8 boxes on the form in and feel happy I'm not going to get into trouble when I get to scrutineering if I get in.
Like a few people have said what is the problem!!!! and if like tamdodds said, if you tell lies on the form you deserve to be excluded, and my view is that if you lie and get caught you should not allowed to ride in the trial again full stop.
To me it's quite simple tick the boxes answer the questions truthfully and send your entry in and hope for the best and like Big John if I don't get in I will be there observing if they need any help.
So hopefully all the moaning will stop but I doubt it some people must get a buzz from it " nowt as queer as folk"
You know not one person has put forward any alternative rules we could use. We as an ACU club used the East Midlands Centre Championship rules to define what was and what was not acceptable. As we are now an AMCA club are you proposing that an AMCA club uses ACU Championship rules to define machine eligability at AMCA events? That would be a first i suppose. The rules were deliberately worded so as not to disadvantage the majority of riders currently riding at the club but to also take into account what bikewise is happening elsewhere i.e. the increasing modernisation of Twinshocks along the lines of what happened to Pre65. Obviously you would prefer the situation to have no brakes put on it and Twinshocks to be allowed to develop into bikes that bear no resemblance to a Bultaco, Ossa, Montesa whatever. Fine if thats your point of view but as you have obviously read our rules which ones are ruining it for everybody?
The eligability rules were written to try to encourage more riders to take part on a cheap but useable twinshock or home built British bike using easily available cheap parts available at bike breakers anywhere. However it's the riders of the heavily modernised bikes that are protesting Wonder why? Most clubs have elegability rules it's part of motor sport. At least then you can build a bike to a known set of rules. Are you saying thats a bad thing? Why?
Everybody has the choice of shopping where they like and trials riders will ride where they like also thats called personal choice. You cant please all the people all the time and some of them none of the time.
Now there isnt a Classic Club in the East Midlands ACU perhaps there are 6-7 or more riders who would like to start one more to their liking? Nothing to stop you. Wish you luck and success
Well here you go again off on another rant! I never mentioned any of the comments above. This is the problem here people trying to second guess what other poeple mean and getting it totally wrong. As for the ridrs who no long ride at Peak Classic none of them had trick bikes other than myself, they were always very well turned out and could be mistaken for being trick but are actually very standard and one in particular won the expert twinshock on several occasions and beat all the trick bikes. As I think Woody stated all the trick parts do not give much or any advantage so what's all fuss about. As for the rule not affecting 99% of the riders, I still cannot work that one out, I'm just glad I don't come on this forum often, only when I want cheering up!!
I still hope you can turn it round because you have some really good venues and it would be a shame to loose the club. Any way by I've actually got a life and won't be appearing here again it's far to funny for me, I thought they would never dry!!
Paul
PS If you want a really good laugh check out Bondy on the Bultaco forum, now he is the funniest so far by a long shot.
Absolutely spot on Martin! You have hit the nail firmly on the head....
See you in Devon in a few weeks for some good old fashioned fun with a hundred or so others ;0)
Yes I would agree with both of you(daveD444 and Turbo) Reading this, it seems to me OTF has come full circle one minute against rule then making them for his club. He's saying that he made a rule that does not affect 99% of riders so what's the point of making it for 1% of his turnout 1% of 60-70 riders !!!!! dur. All I can say is that I know at least 6-7 riders that used to ride at OTFs trials now ride elsewhere myself included mainly because of his rantings last year about the Scottish pre 65 but also the rule changes and the change in the excellent atmosphere which has disappeared.
All I hope is that it's not to late to turn things around?
Paul, it was built with the intention of being ridden by someone we're trying to coax back into twinshocks but could also be for sale (it's not my bike, nothing to do with me)
If you're interested PM me and I can put you in touch with the owner and/or tell you a bit about it. It was assembled literally the day before the show, just in time to get it there on display, so there are still one or two little jobs to be done and then it is ready.
I'm just going out, so be a few hours before I'm back.
Hi Woody
It won't let me PM you says you can't receive any messages?
Hi: Just thank the IDMCC for the fantastic 2011 edition of the Highland Classic. Special thanks to the Moffat family and Paul Edwards for their generosity with me. Also to all the Scottish friends for being so wellcoming.
Even the weather was good to me and enjoyed another Spanish weather weekend in Scotland.
Will be back next year for the 2012 edition.
Thanks Javier it was a pleasure, and yes it is the friendliest trial, everyone involved should have a big pat on the back for making it a brilliant trial.
Thanks to Big John and his family for being perfect hosts.
Anybody contemplating a classic French adventure this year fancy making up a team of Fantic riders for the trial in October near Mt Ventoux. I am looking for two more riders to make up a team of three..
We would all have to ride the same route, preferably the hard.. .
Its possibly the biggest twinshock trial in Europe taking place on a new course this year..early chattering suggest it will be good...
If anybody fancies it please contact me.
Merci..
Bonjour
Yes interested, what are the dates because I think Santigosa is around then or Los Angeles
hi paul bike looks spot on to me , really like the tank unit, makes the bike look a lot lighter,
what carb have you used ? looks like a dellorto from the pics , any chance of letting us know what model /size /jetting etc
Hi It's a PHBH26 main 98 pilot 55 needle 266 starter 65 I think the needle jet and starter jets don't change unless you ask but I just phoned up dellorto and explained what bike and it's a trials bike and he recommended that one and it's works great. I have tried OKOs on 3 different bikes with no success you think they are right then they just move from the setting so you are always playing around with them, maybe I've just had bad luck with them as I know people who say they are good?
So here it is then - the finished job. Well done Paul, thanks for sending me the photo's.
Here you go everyone, enjoy.
Bike looks fantastic, the paint job on the tank took me by surprise Paul.
Thanks Steve, the colour is the same as the frame but isn't showing on the photos, but the colour scheme was from a tank advertised on todotrial which was where I got the tank from. Hope you all enjoy thanks for taking the time to look.
Pre 65 Eligibility Ruling
in Classic Trials
Posted
So what your saying is that 2 riders, same ability are on the same marks dropped and one of them has domino and the other amal levers and they both fall off and damage there levers, and the amal rider gets more marks for being late than the domino rider, and that's fair. I know it's a bit of an exreme example but it could happen, do you think Mr amal levers would be happy chap (no)
So as a few of you have said it's just about the 5 riders excluded, so is it just speculation again on why they were excluded, lets have some facts about the reasons behind why they were excluded then it might be worth a discussion? but to guess and make things up surely thats wrong. We might even find out one of them turned with a gas gas front end !!!! but I doubt it, lets just wait and get facts not fiction.
And yes Yorkshire classic have got it right, I'm a member of that club and it's great to ride with them, if you think they are so good, you should have taken a leaf out their book 2 routes then classes to match easy for everyone.