British Twinshocks what would your eligability critera be?

[rogerroger]

Well said, Charlie

And well done to OTF - brilliant idea that seems obvious once stated.

The best bit is that you get a class with a name that accurately describes the class (always good )

Roger

[woody]

The engine is a 200cc I know what size it is because I have done work on it. As I said it is down to the rider at the en of the day. A lot of people presume its a big engine because he wins alot.

I said 230cc because that's what he said it was.

I've no idea what point you're making here in relation to what components are acceptable and what aren't. What's this got to do with it?

Still no comments on why people think components from other bikes can't be used if they comply with the silhouette or period appearance philosophy, other than 'because they can't'. Not much logical thinking there.

[ask greeves]

In a previous post you showed 3 yokes, which of those 3 did you personally find was the most pleasing to look at, would you agree that the aluminium facsimily of the steel yoke was the most esthetic. This is one of the many reasons I like pre 65, the bikes are very pleasing to look at, both from an engineering perspective and esthetic looks. I would rather look at 25 attractive women, than look at 100 ugly women. If i have the desire to look at a pre 65, in a condition as it was manufactured, I go to Sammy Millers museum. If I want to see pre 65's competing, I go to a pre 65 trial and those bikes are the accumilation of maybe 20 years of competition, within a set of ever changing rules and personal modifications within those rules. In another post there was a Tiger Cub, correct me if I'm wrong, but it looked as if it had steel sliders and cub front hub, your argument that to be legal within pre 65 cost's fortunes doesn't really hold up, wouldn't heavyweight BSA forks and cub hubs do the job, at a fraction of the prices, you have lead us to believe. Pre 65 Trials is still a gentlemans sport and the gentleman that has to scrutineer the bikes can only do this visually with regard to a set of written rules. With reference to yokes, I think you'll find, it's the forward facing clamp bolts of a Montesa Yoke that is the main stumbling block, visually they look 100% wrong. Don't hold me to this, but with little work, a helicoil here, an aluminium plug there. I personally think Montesa Yokes could be altered to pass the scrutineer. Why build a bike which is only eligible for some trials, when for little or no extra effort, you could build a bike which is eligible for all.

[charlie prescott]

Hi Guy's

Hi Greeves.

Look what you are saying has nothing to do with what we are trying to push forward!

And reading through it most of it is wrong anyway,but I am not going to get draw into this.

You are just one,of the people that can not see the wood for the trees.

You have your opinion, and I have mine.

But which one of us is trying to promote and sustain the British trials bike scene, by trying something new, before it is to late, and all British trials bikes die along with us. If we can't get new blood into the sport, and this could be the way???

Regards Charlie.

[rosey]

I'd suggest the competitors who are enjoying themselves are the winners... You all ought to really encourage the gullible to spend thousands or tens of thousands on their pre-2012 bikes.... It'll give you another thing to laugh at and therefore increase your enjoyment.

Maybe its best to stop the pre-2012 bike entrants by not giving out awards???.... After all I'm sure most of the pre-'12 riders are just pot hunting.

OTF's basis of a class seems logical to me, but as its clear there will never be anything 'clear cut' it will be a discussion without end

As for the yokes... the top one that looks like it has been dug up out of the garden looks OK! Well I'm sure it'd be useful to anchor a boat.

To keep these old wrecks running there has to be some compromise... after all original bits/spares must've run out by now, so the OTF formula seems OK.

Is that Thorpeys cub? ... looks like a Cub to me ... well it has a front wheel at the front and a back wheel at the back like Cubs had in the past, but that front mudguard... hmmm mono Yam tut tut

Edited February 1, 2011 by Rosey

[woody]

In a previous post you showed 3 yokes, which of those 3 did you personally find was the most pleasing to look at, would you agree that the aluminium facsimily of the steel yoke was the most esthetic. This is one of the many reasons I like pre 65, the bikes are very pleasing to look at, both from an engineering perspective and esthetic looks. I would rather look at 25 attractive women, than look at 100 ugly women. If i have the desire to look at a pre 65, in a condition as it was manufactured, I go to Sammy Millers museum. If I want to see pre 65's competing, I go to a pre 65 trial and those bikes are the accumilation of maybe 20 years of competition, within a set of ever changing rules and personal modifications within those rules. In another post there was a Tiger Cub, correct me if I'm wrong, but it looked as if it had steel sliders and cub front hub, your argument that to be legal within pre 65 cost's fortunes doesn't really hold up, wouldn't heavyweight BSA forks and cub hubs do the job, at a fraction of the prices, you have lead us to believe. Pre 65 Trials is still a gentlemans sport and the gentleman that has to scrutineer the bikes can only do this visually with regard to a set of written rules. With reference to yokes, I think you'll find, it's the forward facing clamp bolts of a Montesa Yoke that is the main stumbling block, visually they look 100% wrong. Don't hold me to this, but with little work, a helicoil here, an aluminium plug there. I personally think Montesa Yokes could be altered to pass the scrutineer. Why build a bike which is only eligible for some trials, when for little or no extra effort, you could build a bike which is eligible for all.

Yes, I like the look of the modernised bikes, or most of them, much better than the generally ugly and clumsy original 60s look. I think the machining and engineering ability of the people making the stuff is top notch. However, I don't understand why you're making this point ...?? I never said I didn't and I didn't dream up the silhouette rule, nor is it me advocating they should 'look period' or 'British' (which they all do of course...)

Yes, the new billet yokes are by far the most attractive of the three and I like them and would like them on my bike. How you can say they are a facsimile of the god-awful BSA yoke is beyond me as they look nothing like them. The billet yokes will cost between

[totalshell]

if you were advocating a seperate class for brit shocks i would nt have an issue with that but from this last post i read that you are asking for ALL brit twin shocks run in the same class?

so if i was a retired person capable rider ( which seems to fit most current p65 riders)would i

A, build a bitsa from early seventies/ eighties bits and bobs lyin around the garage or in a mates shed

or B, would i be straight out in the garage legs off my beta, hubs cast specially so i could use new tubeless rims etc for the front, i'd have an oil in frame front diamond and swing arm (with extra ovalising) with shock mounting points ala ossa climber from someone like armac a sub frame from titanium from my local bike shop ( painted up you'll never tell its not steel) rear gas coil over shocks with seperate reservoirs from AVO ( there only 175 each) 4 litre 1.5mm alloy tank (blowen out with air for the extra litre) and a luverly 250 motor from say upb with as much alloy /titanium as my early retirement pension can stand, a new d'lortto chuck on cnc yolks for fat bars

and so sadly the picture of billy with no money and little engineering skill on his bitsa doing battle on an equal footing gets blowen out of the water when first one then 35 plan B's turn up.

[twinshock]

As I said about 5 pages back, I wanted to return to England in March and ride in some pre 65 events and was hoping to understand what was legal and what wasn't but with all the different ideas coming from informed & uninformed technical gurus who have the ability to produce a competitive bike from scraps found in the kitchen rubbish bin plus those who like to see their name in print, I don't know what the hell to go for now.

We have similar crap going on in Australia with guys trying to sneak in all sorts of stuff and a couple of know alls who know everything about pre 65 but you never see them out on a Classic bike.

The main contributors on this topic need to remind themselves what 90% of the entry will be riding and they won't have spent 5/6,000 pounds on their bike.

I thought it would be easy enough to understand over here but perhaps I will just buy a modern and compete in the plodders class and some of you guys need to have a think about all the others you are putting off Classic trials bikes with all this, "we should do this, shall we, shan't we" garbage.

I saw some ACU rule changes for 2011 on this site the other day,,, they made sense to me and if all these other suggested changes are necessary why weren't they put forward to the ACU around Sept/Oct last year to be ready for 2011

Edited February 2, 2011 by Twinshock

[bilc0]

I don't know what the hell to go for now.

Stick with your Fantics.

The UK has a very healthy and friendly Twinshock scene,also the same in parts of Europe.

[woody]

if you were advocating a seperate class for brit shocks i would nt have an issue with that but from this last post i read that you are asking for ALL brit twin shocks run in the same class?

so if i was a retired person capable rider ( which seems to fit most current p65 riders)would i

A, build a bitsa from early seventies/ eighties bits and bobs lyin around the garage or in a mates shed

or B, would i be straight out in the garage legs off my beta, hubs cast specially so i could use new tubeless rims etc for the front, i'd have an oil in frame front diamond and swing arm (with extra ovalising) with shock mounting points ala ossa climber from someone like armac a sub frame from titanium from my local bike shop ( painted up you'll never tell its not steel) rear gas coil over shocks with seperate reservoirs from AVO ( there only 175 each) 4 litre 1.5mm alloy tank (blowen out with air for the extra litre) and a luverly 250 motor from say upb with as much alloy /titanium as my early retirement pension can stand, a new d'lortto chuck on cnc yolks for fat bars

and so sadly the picture of billy with no money and little engineering skill on his bitsa doing battle on an equal footing gets blowen out of the water when first one then 35 plan B's turn up.

I've no idea where you're coming from with this - with your Plan B, with the exception of the shocks, you've accurrately described what's been going on for years. These are the bikes that are accepted as Pre65 eligible.

[woody]

As I said about 5 pages back, I wanted to return to England in March and ride in some pre 65 events and was hoping to understand what was legal and what wasn't but with all the different ideas coming from informed & uninformed technical gurus who have the ability to produce a competitive bike from scraps found in the kitchen rubbish bin plus those who like to see their name in print, I don't know what the hell to go for now.

We have the same crap going on in Australia with guys trying to sneak in all sorts of "pre 65" bikes and specifications and a bunch of know alls who just talk but you never see them out on a Classic bike.

The main contributors on this topic need to remind themselves what 90% of the entry will be riding and they won't have spent 5/6,000 pounds on their bike.

I thought it would be easy enough to understand over here but perhaps I will just buy a modern and compete in the plodders class and some of you guys need to have a think about all the others you are putting off Classic trials bikes with all this, "we should do this, shall we, shan't we" garbage.

I saw some ACU rule changes for 2011 on this site the other day,,, they made sense to me and if all these other suggested changes are necessary why weren't they put forward to the ACU around Sept/Oct last year to be ready for 2011

It isn't as bad as this topic makes out, out there in the actual events. I get around the country quite a bit and haven't been aware of sniping between competitors about the spec of bikes, maybe there is some but I've not come across it.

Best example, as I've said before, is the Manx Classic, where there is no component scrutineering, but there are no complaints from riders about he's got this or that on his bike. Everyone just rides and enjoys the event. If that bike has a pair of modified Norton Roadholder forks with modern internals and new billet yokes, and that bike has a pair of Ossa forks nicked from another bike in the owner's shed, no-one cares. All the bikes are acceptable to the riders as no-one complains. No-one takes the p*** and turns up with a GasGas front end.

This is how it should be.

This discussion will go nowhere as it's impossible to have a pragmatic discussion on this forum. Look at previous topics on stop/no-stop rules.

Bottom line is, don't be put off. You can get a bike that doesn't jar your spine and rattle your teeth and at least rides competitively, on a budget. Most clubs will have a specials class if your bike doesn't conform to the Pre65 ideal. The local BMCA have such a class but you'd be unlikely to have to go into that unless your bike is modded unreasonably. The one trial that causes most of the controversy is the Scottish as it doesn't cater for 'specials', whatever that ridiculous term means.

If you're coming back to the Midlands, go have a look at some of the BMCA events, they run up to Easter, see what they're riding.

[woody]

I saw some ACU rule changes for 2011 on this site the other day,,, they made sense to me and if all these other suggested changes are necessary why weren't they put forward to the ACU around Sept/Oct last year to be ready for 2011

People have just got along with the rules the way they are, at most events there is no component scrutineering, so generally there isn't a problem amongst riders.

I've no idea why there have been some rule changes for this year, but the one that interests me is the 35mm fork rule. There are quite a few bikes out there with 36mm and over forks and they can't be told apart from 35mm, unless you can see coloured coating on the stanchions. They have been accepted (ie; the riders haven't been notified that they aren't acceptable) for a number of years now. A lot of money and time has been spent making these forks. Now, these riders must scrap them and build some new forks in order to comply. And for why, will their new eligible forks work any worse or look any different? Not really.

What will be interesting is to see whether this happens (on a personal note, I don't care if it doesn't) I can't see someone going around bikes at the start of trials with a vernier to determine the size of forks. If someone can spot 36mm from 35mm by naked eye I'd be amazed, or even 38mm come to that.

[old trials fanatic]

As I said about 5 pages back, I wanted to return to England in March and ride in some pre 65 events and was hoping to understand what was legal and what wasn't but with all the different ideas coming from informed & uninformed technical gurus who have the ability to produce a competitive bike from scraps found in the kitchen rubbish bin plus those who like to see their name in print, I don't know what the hell to go for now.

We have similar crap going on in Australia with guys trying to sneak in all sorts of stuff and a couple of know alls who know everything about pre 65 but you never see them out on a Classic bike.

The main contributors on this topic need to remind themselves what 90% of the entry will be riding and they won't have spent 5/6,000 pounds on their bike.

I thought it would be easy enough to understand over here but perhaps I will just buy a modern and compete in the plodders class and some of you guys need to have a think about all the others you are putting off Classic trials bikes with all this, "we should do this, shall we, shan't we" garbage.

I saw some ACU rule changes for 2011 on this site the other day,,, they made sense to me and if all these other suggested changes are necessary why weren't they put forward to the ACU around Sept/Oct last year to be ready for 2011

Part of the problem is the ACU as the national governing body have always sort of ignored the "Pre65" side of trials in as much as they have never had a "spec" as i have tried to do and in all fairness Yorkshire Classic etc have had for all to see and build to. The ACU rightly or wrongly have always left it in the lap of either the organising club or championship organiser to sort out. That is why we have ended up in the state we are in. All i was trying to do was attempt to get some specs generally accepted which could they be adopted and then ratified by the ACU. Well i had good intentions anyway.

As for you coming back to blighty and riding in a friendly atmosphere and having fun with like minded people i would strongly advise you seriously consider Twinshocks and if you can ride at a club that caters for Twinshocks as well as British Bikes then you get the best of all worlds and can make your own mind up. Twinshocks are a lot cheaper than British Bikes however the spares situation for British Bikes is much better with so much being remanufactured you will have a plethoria of choice.

Twinshocks are just as much fun though and cheaper plus they hold their value well.

Just a thought and i sincerely hope we havent put you off with our "discussion" ?

Edited February 2, 2011 by Old trials fanatic

[totalshell]

having ridden p65 for 15 years your spot on woody there is no component scrutineering, the bike has only been safety scruntinnered 3 times ( all by the same same club at the same trial each year i asked the scrut why and he said he liked to admire the std of preparation especially of the twinshocks which he felt were often better than new condition) when i rode my first trial 15 years ago i turned up knowing no one with a rare for then bantam ( no other in the club) i was asked did it have the bottom frame loop and that was it.. never again except two polite reminders that gaitors should be worn!

i see the rules as a guide that we should stick to as you say i hear no sniping just engineering curiosity and perhaps a little envy. at the end of the day the best riders win not those with lathes or large wallets. i find myself in niether of those groups but i do enjoy the trials more than the modern stuff where its all a bit more competative and seems all about wearing the latest gear, admitedly the bikes are a synch to maintain and get parts for and they ride a dream but if it aint a struggle it aint worth doing.. so p65 it is.

i've spent the autumn and winter in the garage 'fiddling' and spending money yes to be competitive ( in clubmens class) and to keep up with the jones's and just to see if i could the results are here http://pre65trials.blogspot.com/ we wont win we wont finish last but we ll have a relatively cheap sunday out and have FUN!!!

[b40rt]

at the end of the day the best riders win not those with lathes or large wallets.

But, the sections become harder & harder to take marks from modified bikes, leaving more original bikes and riders at a disadvantage. This must lead to specials being entered in the appropriate class, or maybe a handicap system. (sure that will be a popular suggestion)