huntmaster Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 (edited) On the subject of oil in frame, was an Ariel HT5 production bike oil in frame? No. Every "Millerized" Ariel out there is based on a bike that was never produced by the factory, but a works bike if you like. Remember that most of the famous Miller mods happened after the HT was out of production, when Sam had some leeway to modify the bike (from BSA!). A production HT is 300 + lbs of steel oil tank, forks, big hubs, chrome steel rims.....food for thought! Doug Edited February 9, 2008 by huntmaster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old trials fanatic Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 (edited) Yes, but all those mods were achieveable without a great deal of money being spent and they were all done before 1965!Big John Dunno bout "without a great deal of money" have you priced up having the cub crank modified as in ultra short stroke? No all i meant was that contrary to some peoples ideas of how things were when the world was in black and white Trials bikes have always been modified by their owners. Some of the contributors seem to believe people actually rode the bikes as they were produced by the factories and sold over the counter when in reality a lot of the "Trials" models were barely reworked road bikes that NEEDED extensive mods just to be able to compete. So this idea of "standard" bike only competing in Scotland is a daft as there werent any "Std" bike being ridden competitively Pre65. By definition of std i mean as in Huntmasters posting of the Ariel for example. Very nice AJay though why they never dropped the seat i'll never know Edited February 9, 2008 by Old trials fanatic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big john Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 Here's a photo of my short stroke '64 AJS 16C before it was parted down. The frame has been done and a good friend is working on the motor, so I may have it back together sometime this year. Don't worry the yellow number plate is coming off, I'll use that on a 340 Bulto and the rims have been replaced already. Not sure wheteher to use a brand new (NOS) Jackson tank and do it in ivory white with the gold lining like the last model factory bikes as a tribute or leave it original black and gold, what do you think? Big John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old trials fanatic Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 Here's a photo of my short stroke '64 AJS 16C before it was parted down. The frame has been done and a good friend is working on the motor, so I may have it back together sometime this year.Don't worry the yellow number plate is coming off, I'll use that on a 340 Bulto and the rims have been replaced already. Not sure wheteher to use a brand new (NOS) Jackson tank and do it in ivory white with the gold lining like the last model factory bikes as a tribute or leave it original black and gold, what do you think? Big John Stay with the black and gold BJ Looks a beaut. Very Classy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie prescott Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 Hi Guy's Hi Big "J". Black and Gold, Mate. Regards Charlie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie prescott Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 Hi Guy's Hi Tricky Mick. I hope you are going to rebuild the BSA Mono then, Slinny told me that the shock was Girling and they were a pain in not wanting to get involved with the project. or the "MONO" shock would have become reality in 1963. The bike actualy won a class at the Red Marley hill climb that year. Ridden by Brian Martin I think. Slinny will put me right if I am wrong. Booth him and me Mick would be well intrested in the project as you know. Regards Charlie. PS I am still working out my bit about the Pre 65 classes will get back later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 No. Every "Millerized" Ariel out there is based on a bike that was never produced by the factory, but a works bike if you like. Remember that most of the famous Miller mods happened after the HT was out of production, when Sam had some leeway to modify the bike (from BSA!). A production HT is 300 + lbs of steel oil tank, forks, big hubs, chrome steel rims.....food for thought! Doug I didn't think they were produced with oil in frame. Funny then, how today's oil in frame replica Ariels are allowed to compete but BSA C15/B40 aren't. I know all about how big and heavy a 'proper' HT5 is. A mate has one in its original trim, completely standard like your photo. He entered one of the Miller rounds last year - it was hard enough just to get it to the sections, never mind ride them. It really is horrible to ride... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trickymicky Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 Hi Guy's Hi Tricky Mick. I hope you are going to rebuild the BSA Mono then, Slinny told me that the shock was Girling and they were a pain in not wanting to get involved with the project. or the "MONO" shock would have become reality in 1963. The bike actualy won a class at the Red Marley hill climb that year. Ridden by Brian Martin I think. Slinny will put me right if I am wrong. Booth him and me Mick would be well intrested in the project as you know. Regards Charlie. PS I am still working out my bit about the Pre 65 classes will get back later. Hi Charlie, No,sadly i dont seem to have the bike in question. Its interesting though how long a good idea can take to catch on. Even after sprung rear ends were offered, some riders still thought rigids were better and bought them in preference to springers for a while.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huntmaster Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 I know all about how big and heavy a 'proper' HT5 is. A mate has one in its original trim, completely standard like your photo. He entered one of the Miller rounds last year - it was hard enough just to get it to the sections, never mind ride them. It really is horrible to ride... Yep. A beautiful bike to look at but if I had a production HT I'm not even sure I could ride it in my "local" vintage series, which runs the few pre-65 bikes together with newer twinshock bikes...on the easier of the lines. There would have to be an another easier one still or I would probably be leaving a trail of oil to the next section... and might just as well be running a rigid! Doug Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony283 Posted March 1, 2008 Report Share Posted March 1, 2008 As this thread never dies I've written an article on my web with a few personal views on "the problems" and some suggestions as to the way forward. Then a look at the USA Vintage scene and what you can do over here. See "The Pre 65 Debate" Too long to publish on this site. Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huntmaster Posted March 1, 2008 Report Share Posted March 1, 2008 Good article Tony. As I posted earlier, the rules here in North America are definitely a lot less strict..however we are also dealing with a fraction of the numbers of pre-65 entries one sees in the UK I expect, even at the largest AHRMA meetings. It still seems that there could be some middle ground here, particulary in the face of an aging demographic dealing with what were very big heavy bikes in their day! Besides that, I would like to get my HT over to Scotland one year and I suspect it's Ceriani fork will be a deal breaker under the current rules! Doug Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest majestyman340 Posted March 2, 2008 Report Share Posted March 2, 2008 Good article Tony.As I posted earlier, the rules here in North America are definitely a lot less strict..however we are also dealing with a fraction of the numbers of pre-65 entries one sees in the UK I expect, even at the largest AHRMA meetings. It still seems that there could be some middle ground here, particulary in the face of an aging demographic dealing with what were very big heavy bikes in their day! Besides that, I would like to get my HT over to Scotland one year and I suspect it's Ceriani fork will be a deal breaker under the current rules! Doug Not sure that the 4 bolt BSA/Triumph forks are P65?..................if not good to see you can build pretty much what you want regards P65 in the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony283 Posted March 2, 2008 Report Share Posted March 2, 2008 Majestyman340, The forks on the Cub are from a 1970 BSA B50 and give the same wheelbase. 1974 is our cut off year so I can use them along with the 74 Yam front wheel and as carburation isn't subject to any rulings a Martyn Adams Del Orto. Strangely we can't use the Otter frames in our Premier pre 65 classes but they are OK in the Modern Classic Series. There we go RULES IS RULES! Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie prescott Posted November 10, 2014 Report Share Posted November 10, 2014 Hi Guy's. Was that really 2008? Thought some of you might want another read Now. Regards Charlie. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laird387 Posted November 11, 2014 Report Share Posted November 11, 2014 The eledgebility for pre 65 bikes is obviously a very emotive one, I agree with a lot of what Mike Rapley says, personaly I think that the pre 65 rules should have been jumped on and policed a long time ago. I have just looked up "pre" (as in pre 65) in my dictionary and the defenition is beforehand, previous to, so there we have it, does that mean "ONLY" needs to look like" pre 65?, or should it mean the machine specification should be, beforehand, and previous to 65. for example I find it hard to understand how a trials bike using a frame that is made in the 80's from a specification of steel that did not exist in 65 can remotley be accepted as pre 65. There are so many fiddles & fiddle parts that seem to be accepted, the mind boggles !!. But thats my opinion. Is it now time to call a halt to pre 65 development, if it is allowed to cary on are we to see in a few years time crankcases manufactured from composite materials, and engine parts made of simular material, and ceramics ?, and/or frames made from carbon fibre tubing "glued" together somehow, and then will we say " well it looks like a alloy crankcase, the frame tubes look like they are steel, and what does it matter if the piston is made from a ceramic material, you cant see it!. If the rules are not looked at this will thru natural progression and human deceitfulness happen. Perhaps there are people that want to see wonderful "natural" 60's trials bikes pushed to the rear of the shed and never used, or only seen at exhibitions, that would be so sad, it is our history, part of our British trials bike heritage may be lost, to what ?, something that "LOOKS" like a 60's trials bike. As a matter of interest, would my 1965/5 BSA C15 trials bike with the frame that I made in1964, that has no frame tubes beneath the engine, or the "works" C15 BSA with monoshock rear suspension that was made in 1964/5 be elegiable for the pre 65 scottish ??. Slinny Hi everyone, There were all sorts of 'development' machines that could be seen, from time to time in public - but more often away from popular gaze! I used to live near Market Drayton and was one of the volunteers that worked all sorts of funny shifts at the time, so I could occasionally be available to help out my mates in the Salop club getting Hawkstone ready for big meetings. BSA also had an arrangement with the Salop club that enabled them to bring bikes to Hawkstone, away from the public gaze, in order to evaluate development ideas - and I was present on some of those days, which is where my friendship with Jeff Smith and Johnny Draper began. On their Hawkstone days the BSA lads were usually looking at scrambles mods and one of the particularly interesting tests involved a works Cis scrambler fitted with leading link forks very similar to the Husqvarna pattern of the day. Jeff and Drapes rode the bike turn and turn about, with the other on his normal works bike. It became increasingly obvious during the session that whichever was on the leading link bike 'won' that check. Apparently the bike only made it to one international meeting, was kept under wraps for most of the day, but did go out on the track and performed well - yet never made it either into the popular press or production - now whether the popular press knew about it is another matter, but they would certainly not ever mention it when BSA let them know it was NOT for popular consumption - 'cos the advertising revenue is usually more important to publishers than the accuracy of the history they supposedly report......... And, sad to say, that continues to this day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.