Triumphs And Bsas.

[woody]

The category for British bikes in the ACU classic series actually caters for British bikes up to 1975, not 1965, it's no longer called pre-65 class if I remember correctly. Twinshock category caters for twinshocks that don't fit that one.

The original pre-65 date in classic trials was indeed to cut out the 4 speed Bultaco as it never stipulated British bikes only, just pre-65, so back then, before the top guys had 'developed', modernised or whatever their pre-65 bikes to their current level, an original 4 speed Bult would have been more competitive, as it was when they first appeared. Don't think todays trick pre-65 bikes have anything to fear from one of those early Bults though -they're now a dinosaur by comparison....

[steve]

Well I am building a Tiger Cub at the moment and it will be very original. Original frame, forks, petrol tank, oil tank, standard engine etc.. Not really through choice though - I can't afford the trick bits!! It will perhaps have some form of electronic ignition for reliability (I am looking at using strimmer ignition). If I turn up to a Trial and find I am totally uncompetetive then I will be very supprised. I believe that if it is well set up then I can win on it. Trials is 99% rider and it will give me great pleasure to beat the super trick cheat bikes. Oh and not jealous at all

[old trials fanatic]

well all i can say is good luck Steve and i hope you enjoy yourself. If your bike is as origional and std as you say just make sure you choose a dry trial otherwise you will spend most of it clearing mud out of the rear swing arm as if its not been widened you wont need any brakes. Perhaps you are right about trials being 99% rider, assuming that riders name is Lampkin or Raga or perhaps Andrews would be more appropriate in this case, but i cant agree on this one. The reason the bikes have all become so modified is they have had to. Folks havent spent small fortunes for tax reasons. At some trials you would be lucky to even get through the majourity of the sections without some of the "trick" mods. Trials is like that at all levels and i all fairness its one of the attractions of the sport. Putting a little bit of oneself into the bike is part of the fun. The problem with the mega trick mods is not just the cost but as Bultaco who started all this was asking "who is the guru". What is necessary, what is legal and where can you get those mods done. Where the expense comes in is hiding the mods so that they can not be seen.

I truly hope you enjoy your Cub and theres no reason why you shouldnt. As for being competitive and winning events? Well if youre that good possibly but a tricked up "British" bike would make the job so much easier. Interesting posts though with some very constructive responses. Pre 65 or should i say Pre 75 is alive and well judgeing by the interest shown. Lets just make it a bit more honest and "what you see is what you get" and that will be better for all. Also cheeper and that must be better for all concerned.

Let us all know how you went on. Youll probably be the only std Cub there.

Edited July 16, 2004 by Old trials fanatic

[bulltaco]

Thanks for all the info lads.

At my age I don't think "competitive" is very much in my vocabulary.

I haven't competed for ages but I do do a heck of a lot of "Scottish" type moorland riding in the course of organising events. I really fancy a Faber framed bike, preferably a Triumph twin really just for sentiment, the same reason I keep my old 340 Bult. I was in touch with Andy Johnstone on the SSDT pre-65 specs a while ago which ruled out the Faber plan , but with what Vinnied says it looks like it will pay not to rush things until we hear whats really what for next year. With five bikes lying around already I can barely justify another so I'll have to get it right first time and hope to be lucky in the pre-65 ballot next year.

Thanks again.

P.S. Who's Alan Whitton and what's PVL.

[steve]

Alan Whitton is the guy who hides modern forks inside period outers.

PVL is a really neat ignition that fits directly to the crank instead of the alternator, it does however mean a total stripdown as the left hand crankcase needs studs welding on and machining.

When I said my bike was going to be standard I probably didn't mean totally standard as there are some things which you simply have to do. As mentioned the swinging arm does not accept a 4.00" tyre so I am doing that. The footpegs will be moved, and wheels relaced to alloy rims -21" & 18". What I can't afford is PVL, Trick forks, 250cc conversions etc..

[steve]

Dont even start me on Mick Andrews "Famous James" thats more 80's 90's and today than pre flippin 65.

I would be very interested to hear about Mick's James. I presume you have seen inside the engine or is it just hearsay?

The reason I ask is because I have actually seen inside the engine. Ok so not recently bust a few years ago there was a lot of talk about Mick's Yamaha/James.

I used to practice at his house most weeks and Mick was always good for a few stories ect.. so after practice I popped my head into his workshop just as he was stripping his engine. He had ridden a tough trial at the weekend and the small end had started to nip up. He was quite pleased to see me and said I should pay close attention as he removed the head and barrel. I was most supprised to see a bog standard Villiers piston and no sign of Yamaha parts anywhere. The problem was indeed the little end bush.

Mick was talking about all the bikes that were super special that nobody ever mentioned but because he used to win all the time then people presume his bike must be illegal.

Perhaps he has made a few recent changes but I can assure you that it was pretty standard when I saw it. (around 1999)

[old trials fanatic]

No i havent seen inside the engine of Micks James and my refererence was about the bike as a whole. Micks bike is no better or worse from an origonality point of view than any of the other top competitors and why not. My point is that i dont see any origional pre 65 bikes competing. They have all evolved and so they should have. If anybody wants to modify the internals, externals or any other part they they should have the freedom to do so and good luck to them. Thats precisely what we did in the 60's. My point, not that it means much, is i rode trials in the late 60's 1968 was my first event at Kniveton. I remember the way the bikes performed then. What they were capable of. How they sounded. Todays incarnations are a quantum leap ahead. As Woody said the origional idea of pre65 was to exclude the Bultacos which would have wiped the floor with the competition as they regularly did in the 60's. Nowadays the "British bikes" compete on equal terms and sometimes trounce the spanish contenders. Something must have changed and i dont see that much difference with the Bultaco, Montesa, Ossa bikes. So you tell me? I dont want to exclude modification i applaud it. I just dont agree with the masquerade of hiding modern internals in a period outer. Micks bike sounds one hell of a lot crisper, picks up quicker, turns and grips way beyond its 1965 incarnation. Thats neither good nor bad just progress. My "shot" was at the organisers of the Scottish who get "heavy" about some things but turn a blind eye to others. What difference does it make if your fork pinch bolts are inboard or outboard of the stantion? Who cares a toss if the brakes are not as they left the factory. I want a brake that works. That brakes! You said it yourself you could not afford the trick bits. Well if you were allowed to use freely available parts from a breakers then perhaps you could, only if you wanted to that is. The sport is getting away from the grass roots and that is not healthy. If what Vinned says is true then i applaud it and my Faber framed, B40 engined, PVL ignitioned, Bultaco forked "special" will be able to compete honestly and without cloaking devices.

Mick Andrews has probably done more for the sport of trials than anybody else. The TY250 mono brought trials to the masses and the sport had never been as popular when the man in the street could buy a reliable competitive machine, ride it every weekend with little more than the occasional plug and tyre and be competitive. Mick modified my Ty250 well Alan did the machining i found out later but i have no gripe with him. What we need is a set of regs that apply to all trials the Scottish included. Perhaps we ought to start a forum here and decide for them? The ACU has been taking our money and doing naff all for long enough what do you think?

Anyway as i said before good luck with your Cub and lets hope that things get more open and honest. And affordable.

[steve]

I sold my cub a while ago and met up with the current owner at a local event. He told me he had been refused an entry to the Scottish as the forks were Japanese !! Strange because i distinctly remember collecting them from Metal Profiles (DMW) in Birmingham. Now unless i took a wrong turning at Lichfield or they have sold off Birmingham to the land of the rising sun that makes them British and because i am an old git i remember having exactly the same forks in an old AJS in the 60's So what do you draw from that.

If you still had the bike that you rode in the early 60's with the 'japanese!!!' MP forks would it be refused an entry?

On the same sort of theme replica frames are ok. I have a photo of my Dad's home made Tiger Cub special with heavily modified frame from 1961, can I ride a replica of that? or even the original for that matter?

[old trials fanatic]

I just dont know and thats the problem. The current owner was refused an entry and he said it was because he had "Japanese" forks but anybody with a copy of Don Moreleys book Classic British two stroke trials bike could have seen they were MP forks as used by lots of Cottons, AJS, Sprite etc. OK they were not std issue on a cub but neither are concentric carbs and definately not Mikunis and at least the forks were available in 1964 so i personally dont see the problem. Its all down to the organisers and their interpretation of what is and what is not allowed. When is a replica frame a replica, i.e. the same as, and when is it a modified version of and by how much ? If you wanted to put a cub engine in a greeves frame and all the bits were from bikes made before 1965 then why not? but you can bet somebody would object.

The bottom line is nobody really knows till you try. That just isnt good enough is it. We need a set of regs that apply to ALL events in the UK then you can build and or adjust your bike accordingly.

It would be very interesting to find if your dads bike would be allowed an entry in the Scottish as there is no way they could argue that it was not pre 65 could they?.

A lot of the people who are deeming things inelegable were not even born then never mind riding and their knowledge of the period seems vague to say the least. I'm not saying i am the oracle but as youve probably guessed it really annoys me when a bike thats in the true spirit of trials bikes of that era and follows the practice of the period, using anything that was available and could be made to fit, is deemed illegal and a bike that has modern bits hidden under period parts is let in. If nothing else it means the origional bits become extinct as they have all been snapped up and modified so stopping anybody from restoring a bike to true origionality should they so desire.

You could ride your dads bike, or a replica of it, in events in some areas but not 10 miles down the road in another centre. Daft isnt it.