Rules?

[Guest majestyman340]

Whether or not you ignore the cheats doesnt make a lot of difference, if they are allowed to use tricked up hybrid specials to beat riders on authentic machines with original parts.

[andy m]

Majestyman340 you do not always have to post after post. It is possible to edit posts 4 mins between posts is not required, PS mono forks on a Majesty does nowt to the steering head angle. As this has been explained here before. These have been used because the old TY forks are shot and the sensible way forward are Yamaha parts from as close to the era as possible. The mono brake is not the best anyway, but that what comes with the forks. "Later" forks in my book would be something from a Gas Gas or whatever.

[michaelmoore]

Lets just say Swooshdave that you are more in the real world than Michael.

Back to reality. We are so grateful to actually have any observers over here that if they wanted you to blow them a kiss in order to get a clean then so be it as long as they apply the same rules to all the riders through their section

I think I've got a decent idea of how things often work in the real world of motorcycle competition. I've raced in a few AMA BoTT nationals and I've got friends who've been associated with factory teams and I'm well aware of how "name" riders can get a pass on something while a privateer gets hassled. My local roadrace club (American Federation of Motorcyclists - at over 50 years I think it is the oldest strictly RR organization in the USA) seems to have little trouble applying track and equipment rules evenhandedly, which is not something that can be said about many periods in the AMA's history.

The promoters/organizers have the responsability for running the event. It is their responsibility to make sure the people they engage to help them do that (whether volunteers, paid with lunch and a free entry for the next event, or paid with cash) do their jobs correctly. Even if you are a volunteer, you are still working and if you can't do the work correctly you should be replaced by someone who can. And if you can't get enough competent/trustworthy people to run an event, you don't hold the event.

If you've got published rules that are being ignored or applied haphazardly you aren't holding an observed trials competition. What you are doing is hold an observed trials "track day" where people can come and pay their money to ride sections other people have set up.

If you want to be in the business of hosting trials track days, just do that. You might actually get more people to come out than you would if you hold a "competition" event where some people get to cheat and others don't.

Someone has to take some responsibility. The promoter is the one that is taking in the cash, and it seems they need to deliver what they said they would do. It seems like the customers (the riders) also have a responsibility to not patronize events that are shoddily run. Why reward someone for doing a bad job?

It isn't unknown for people to get fed up and set up a new club or organization to run their own events. Sure, then they get stuck having to do the work instead of letting the other guys do it, but if you are annoyed enough by the way the other guys do it you'll bite the bullet. If it is too much trouble and you'd rather just go to the other people's event and bitch about what a bad job they are doing, perhaps the bitching is out of order.

Don't get me wrong, I'm as happy to bitch about things as the next person. But I try not to get into the mode of "not only do they serve horrible food, their portions are are also too small." You either put up with things and largely hold your tongue or you put your money (or time and sweat) where your mouth is and do it yourself. A lot of times things aren't so bad that you can't put up with them and bite your tongue. I've done that and I expect there will be plenty of occasions to do that in the future. Everyone gets to make their choices.

cheers,

Michael

[swooshdave]

Lets just say Swooshdave that you are more in the real world than Micheal.

Perhaps it's because we have comparatively a lot more Trials in a smaller area each weekend it dilutes the entry and available observer pool ?

I don't know about that first statement. I'm just throwing my view from the very limited experience in AHRMA trials over the last couple years, and West Coast only too.

We've had events where fellow riders would have to observe. You just take turns. Trials here is not like the other disciplines. Most people are out there to compete against themselves. It's how good you do against the course, not necessarily against your competitors. If you're the overly competitive type, you are most likely racing MX.

Even the experience levels are unregulated, so if that's the case, then who the heck cares about the bikes? Aside from the National at Chehalis most trials are so small we are just grateful to have a trials to go to, let alone have enough observers.

If anyone can chime in on the "interpretation" of vintage trials rules, it has to be Jay Lael. His Hodakas are, in my opinion, outside the "spirit of the class", as Hodaka never built anything like those bikes (nor were going to, from my understanding), BUT, the AHRMA rulebook has a couple of "exceptions. One being that specials "with obvious non-period or excessive modifications will be disqualified or required to compete in the next-higher-level class.". If he already rides in the Expert class, does that disallow the "next-higher-level exception" and thus a disqualification?

And hopefully no offense to Jay, but that was the one example I could think of. He's the kind of rider who could get on most any vintage bike and do as well.

As mentioned, at least in this region, the lack of riders will probably preclude any disqualifications. More riders = more observers = more events.

I remember being at Mid-Ohio in the late 90s and Trials was exhibition-only. We come a ways since then.

[michaelmoore]

There's something to be said for having the competitors score each other, especially if you have a rule that you can't have someone score you more than once per loop so that there is little chance of two people scoring each other with cleans all the way through. But maybe some people have a lot more friends who'd be willing to fudge the score than I do, and so could come up with nothing but cleans.

Another rider is going to have a good idea if you've really stopped or just momentarily stopped "pressing on regardless." And if the person scoring you is competing against you the likelihood that you'll try a fiddle movement seems somewhat reduced.

I very much appreciate the people who put on trials (or roadrace or MX) events that I can ride at. It is no doubt a lot of work and aggro and I'm glad I don't have to do it, and I'll give them a fair bit of benefit of the doubt if that seems warranted. But there's a difference between "everyone trying their best to do things right but proving to not be quite up to par" and "half the observers giving their friends/heroes breaks, or the promoters saying "who cares how things were scored, we decided how the trophies would be handed out before the "event"".

I hope the latter case is never the case. But from some of the comments I've seen at Trials Central in different threads it sounds like it might happen now and then.

Bike eligibility is a whole 'nother can of worms. DIY modifications/complete bikes is an interest of mine and I've got a lot of material from the early/mid 1960s on that shows me that there has been a lot of very interesting things done in sheds across the planet. You can pick a "period" modification from 15 different period bikes and add them together to have a thoroughly modern "period" bike. Pugeot had DOHC 4v/cylinder engines in the mid 19teens (a friend of mine has one of the Pugeot Indy cars at his vintage race car shop and I've gotten to look at the engine) and there's very little new under the sun. So you need to have some sort of "period bike" template to use. If you can hold up the template and the bike behind it is a pretty close match, it is OK. Too many Pre65 bikes seem to fit behind a "late 1980s" template and not a "mid 1960s" template. This is not a problem only with trials, classic MX and RR have a similar problem.

Some organizers will say "screw the non-period bikes, we're drawing a line at 98% original and if we don't get enough entries we'll not hold the event", some will say "85% original is good enough, and we'll accept "like design"" and others will say "we'll take anyone that seems to be even remotely possibly maybe eligible in order to get the event going and hopefully later we can tighten up eligibility and put on the event with real period bikes as we advertise."

Each approach has different pros and cons. Not all situations are the same. But if you have published rules it would be nice if you actually follow and enforce them.

cheers,

Michael

[Guest majestyman340]

I understood that the reason most people fit the leading axle mono forks was to provide increased trail, and get a bit more front wheel grip?

[t-shock 250]

These have been used because the old TY forks are shot and the sensible way forward are Yamaha parts from as close to the era as possible. The mono brake is not the best anyway, but that what comes with the forks.

You crack me up Bo drinker

You're on your own if you think later mono forks & brake are fitted just to replace the "shot" standard setup, people fit them because they are BETTER.

Yamaha made them better because that is PROGRESS.

Edited March 26, 2008 by t-shock 250

[frenchie]

This is extremely boring now and possibly my last comment on the subject...but can anybody tell me apart from the " They weren t supplied as standard " why mono forks are any different in any way in any shape or form any better or worse, in fact any different from the forks and front wheel set up of any of the twinshock bikes from around 1980 onwards thus being no more than an sensible upgrade in line with the machines as previously described. Can we move on from this and perhaps find another subject far more interesting.

[swooshdave]

I thought someone had pointed out the that the internals had changed. Sure forks look the same on the outside, but you should be able to feel the difference between older and new forks.

[andy m]

frenchie. Yes this is boring now, let's move on.

t shock 250. Yes the forks are better, and yes it is "progress". No need to shout. (Capital letters used for whole words in forums) Ask the site owner.

PS if you would like to see a pic of a set of shot TY forks I can take a photo and send it to you.

Anyway I will be on the Scorpa this weekend, the one with one shock and an aircooled motor.

[Guest majestyman340]

This is extremely boring now and possibly my last comment on the subject...but can anybody tell me apart from the " They weren t supplied as standard " why mono forks are any different in any way in any shape or form any better or worse, in fact any different from the forks and front wheel set up of any of the twinshock bikes from around 1980 onwards thus being no more than an sensible upgrade in line with the machines as previously described. Can we move on from this and perhaps find another subject far more interesting.

Maybe it is boring, but would you find it so if you needed to find

[feetupfun]

I understood that the reason most people fit the leading axle mono forks was to provide increased trail, and get a bit more front wheel grip?

If you replace in-line forks with leading axle forks of the same length and use the same triple clamp offset, the trail is reduced, not increased. There are also many other effects on geometry as described by MichaelMoore at length.

The main benefit from changing to Yamaha mono forks on a Majesty is a slight improvement in damping control and spring rate. It is really quite a small improvement. The invisible addition of gold valves (cartridge emulators) in either TY250 twinshock or TY250 mono forks can make a very large improvement to fork damping and is commonplace in Vintage MX and I would assume they are also used in the forks of some pre-65 trials bikes.

[t-shock 250]

At one of the classic rounds last year, i noticed one of the regular decent riders had replaced the forks on his (pretty tidy) TLR250 with the forks & hub from a TY mono,

This bloke knows a bit about modifying bikes & said it was a marked improvement over the standard Honda setup, this was a surprise to me as i rate the 35mm showas & brake as pretty bloody good.

Anyway, having started paying attention to forks after that, i started noticing a few other bikes with aforementioned mono forks, with riders stating improved performance as the reason for upgrading.

Really, i don't think there is a huge advantage to be gained by this, but technically a line needs to be drawn, perhaps only forks/brakes/engines from other twinshock bikes can be fitted? i don't know.

Edited March 27, 2008 by t-shock 250

[woody]

Personally, I don't think the TY Mono forks are any better than the Marzocchis fitted to 240/300 Fantics. Marzocchis from later aircooled bikes such as Stripey Betas, Fantic 301 are also so close in performance to the 240/300 forks or TY Mono forks that it really makes no difference.

Forks from Yam TY twinshock and Honda TLR200/250 are pretty poor (all personal opinion obviously but that's mine) They are under-sprung and under-damped - they aren't as good as mid 70s Ossa/Bult/Mont forks.

So, all that is being achieved by using Yam Mono or Marzocchi forks in a TY Yam or Honda is to put the front forks on a par with other bikes such as Fantic 240/300, Armstrong, Garelli, SWM etc. It is not cheating or fiddling (my opinion obviously) If you weigh around 10-12 stones the Yam or Honda forks are probably fine. If you are 17+ they aren't (which is why it's personal opinion) they bottom, top and generally do everything they shouldn't and nothing they should.

Just out of interest, I had a Majesty 15 years ago fitted with Fantic forks (fitted by a previous owner) and no-one batted an eyelid.

Now once you get past the aircooled mono years, bikes had upside down forks and no-one in their right mind would want to fit any of those. The next generation of right-way-up forks, as fitted to GasGas, Fantic, Beta watercoolers are superior and perhaps they should be made ineligible

[t-shock 250]

Fair point woody, i actually do fit into the 10-12 stone category!