"Trick-Shocks" Is This The Way To Go?

[rosey]

Back to this B'stard class (earlier post)... Can we draw a list of them up... we can let them ride new or old bikes too!

[old trials fanatic]

Just had a look at your rules and have one or two genuine observations.

Twinshock minimum wheelbase 50" - TY175 and mini-Majesty and possibly Whitehawk are less than this.

*** Good point Woody i was more than a bit concerned about this one myself. I was just trying to deter super short trick bikes. Rule will be deleted. *****

Forks max 36mm - Why 36mm all were 35mm apart from SWM at 38mm. Is it intended to allow Yama Mono front ends (which I don't have an issue with as Yam monos were competing against twinshocks in 1983/4/5 so it was a possible mod then.

*** Yes Woody a lot of Majestys already competing at our club with TY mono forks so dont want to deter them and mono forks are cheap and easy to source plus most 35mm yokes can be cheaply machined to take 36mm legs. ****

38mm Forks - it's a bit woolly. Can only SWM use them or any twinshock. As there are no dating classes in t/s, it's one class that spans 1970 - 1985, therefore it stands to reason that any bike can have 38mm if they are all competing against each other? Maybe needs rewording to clarify exactly what the rule means.

*** Yes was intended not to exclude SWM which is why they had an exemption. But i get your point. Dont know how else to include std SWM but exclude front ends off a modern Gasser etc? Personally agree with you re Marzocchi and would prefer those were used. Trouble is if you introduce date splits like another local club has you get people fitting earlier tanks and engine covers to make their bike look earlier when it's not.***

Fuel carried in tank above the motor - There is a genuine Bultaco modified in the 70s by Steve Wilson that had the fuel tank and air filter positions reversed (like the later JCM) John Collins owns it now and still rides it. It was ridden in the 70s like this but by definition would be in the specials. There could be other bikes out there like this as people were creating all sorts back then. If someone copied that Bultaco now, does it make it a trick/cheat/special?

*** There will always be a one off special somewhere. Monoshock OSSA comes to mind. You cant make a rule that accomodates one offs. Although you couls give a one off a dispensation to allow them to ride. Down to the CoC. That rule will stay because it keeps costs down. If somebody turns up on one they can still ride but as a Special or guest non championship points ride. ***

Tubeless rims - I've said my bit on them...

*** I do follow your point but for the time being this rule will stay. ***

Later engines - How much of an advantage are they, really? It's mainly Fantic or Beta we're talking about. Again, I'm not keen on it but have no real objection. If I fit a 240 Fantic with a reed valve it is perfectly acceptable. Tamaha TY250 had them in 1973 as a production bike and set a precedent. Ossa UK were using them in 1975. Numerous privateer bikes were converted in that era. So there can be no objection to any twinshock (in the absence of cut-off date classes) being fitted with a reed. So, back to the Fantic. What is the difference between me fitting the reed to the 240 or putting in a 245 reed motor which saves me trying to find someone to convert the 240 for me. I can't see any. I also wouldn't bother I have to add, as the Fantics 200, 240 and 300 have more than enough GO for today's classic sections - see previous post. But if some choose to do it I'm not going to object. If I had a Fantic 240 and put the latest 307 motor in it, I'm not suddenly going to win this year's Normandale championship. My results will be the same. Similarly, if David Pye removed his 38mm forks and later motor and put his 300 back to standard, he isn't going to drop behind me in the results.

*** Dont totally disagree but previously we made monos converted to twinshock ride as air cooled monos. They were one of the type of bike along with say a Fantic with a Bantam or Cub motor entering as a British Bike etc etc which i had in mind when i added the Trickshock class. This also mirrors the East Midlands Centre ACU Classic Championship rules so will keep it as is. ***

I can see what you want to do and that you have concerns over the direction you think twinshocks is heading, but I see the reality differently. I don't think it will ever go the Pre65 route. Even the oldest twinshocks are quite reasonable to ride in terms of handling, weight, steering and suspension. Even the worst of them like the KT250 (sorry KT, I loved you but you weren't the best ride) is still competitive in a modern B trial and I actually won a few B standard modern club trials on it, against other twinshocks and modern bikes. So there isn't the need for them to be heavily modified to make them rideable like a god-awful standard Pre65 bike.

These 'super' twinshocks don't really exist. Most of the mods are cosmetic and remodelling, performance wise they aren't putting those bikes light years ahead of the standard machine - like in Pre65

Things can always change I guess but I know from competing all over the place that most riders agree on where the boundaries are. There will always be one or two who want to 'push it' but that is human nature - in all walks of like.

******* Can i just say thanks Woody for the first constructive response to the rules i put forward. Good logical arguement and i will on reflection amend the Elegability rules tonight. *******

Edited February 17, 2012 by Old trials fanatic

[old trials fanatic]

Hi paul the new rules would not class my bike as a trickshock but it is not a standard pre 65 bike so it and all the other non standard bikes should be in the new trickshock class (i entered in the specials class in the northern bike championship last year).I have nothing against your new class it would be a good idea if all the modified bikes were entered in it but they will not be, the same as the northern bike championship with modified bikes in the normal classes which realy defeats the point of it.

Looking at peaks rules and the bikes that normaly compete there i can only think of one twinshock bike that will have to ride in the trickshock class,is it worth having a class for one bike ,theres allready too few bikes in each class ,less classes would be better providing more of a challenge and the championships more worthwhile.As i have said before there are allready routes to suit everyone the bikes we ride dont make that much differance .

Thanks for the input Mick but dont agree with you on the class issue i feel we need the 5 classes. Firstly to encourage more class winners to move up and give others a chance. Secondly i need to keep the clubman route on the easy side, probably even easier this coming season, to encourage newcomers Novices or just people wanting a less challenging ride and lets not forget the more std British Bikes so many keep telling me are just waiting for a suitable route to ride.

"less classes would be better providing more of a challenge and the championships more worthwhile." Just wondering if you will be riding the beast in the Expert class this season?

[bisby]

Im puzzled to find a problem with what Paul has done here, he has put a new class in so whatever type of classic bike you come with you can ride it in a class to suite your bike.

Peak classic trials are always fun to ride, fellow riders are a good bunch too. Some have modified bikes some dont, its there choice what they do to there bike. now there is a class for everyone.

looking at the rules my only problem is i have never had a engine kill button on my Ossa and i have ridden it for 22 years, (never needed it) anyone know how to fit one?

Steve.

[woody]

looking at the rules my only problem is i have never had a engine kill button on my Ossa and i have ridden it for 22 years, (never needed it) anyone know how to fit one?

Steve.

Ditto the chainguard...

[old trials fanatic]

OK OK Steve and Dave perhaps i was being a bit OTT on those two. Kill switch was for safety reasons having been traped once under my bike with my arm stuck between the rear tyre and the rear shock with the bike reving it's nuts off in gear and the only way i could stop the engine was to rip the plug cap off. That made me hair stand on end and i've still got the scars on my arm to prove it.

I'll mark the kill switch as advisory and delete the chain guard rule.

Thanks again for the input logical and well considered.

[big_red_bike]

Thanks for the input Mick but dont agree with you on the class issue i feel we need the 5 classes. Firstly to encourage more class winners to move up and give others a chance. Secondly i need to keep the clubman route on the easy side, probably even easier this coming season, to encourage newcomers Novices or just people wanting a less challenging ride and lets not forget the more std British Bikes so many keep telling me are just waiting for a suitable route to ride.

"less classes would be better providing more of a challenge and the championships more worthwhile." Just wondering if you will be riding the beast in the Expert class this season?

Hi Paul yes i might ride my twin in the expert class if i dont get a twinshock,i ride expert every where else the only reason i didnt at peak last year was that some times sections are a bit tight to fit my triumph twin engine through without risking engine cases.

[old trials fanatic]

Hi Paul yes i might ride my twin in the expert class if i dont get a twinshock,i ride expert every where else the only reason i didnt at peak last year was that some times sections are a bit tight to fit my triumph twin engine through without risking engine cases.

Will do my best to make sure the sections are not as tight this season.

[charlie prescott]

Hi Guy's

Hi OTF.

With guys like Woody about, who can always put common sense to an argument? It seems like the end of WW three could actually be in the negotiation stage.

I have today been advised by a close friend that I would be bonkers to give up what I have lived for most of my life, on a few comments that did not suit me. And so have today been piecing together my first "Trickshox" bike, again along with a friend, both of these can be ridden in this,"Trickshox

[old trials fanatic]

Hi Guy's

Hi OTF.

With guys like Woody about, who can always put common sense to an argument? It seems like the end of WW three could actually be in the negotiation stage.

I have today been advised by a close friend that I would be bonkers to give up what I have lived for most of my life, on a few comments that did not suit me. And so have today been piecing together my first "Trickshox" bike, again along with a friend, both of these can be ridden in this,"Trickshox

[bisby]

OK OK Steve and Dave perhaps i was being a bit OTT on those two. Kill switch was for safety reasons having been traped once under my bike with my arm stuck between the rear tyre and the rear shock with the bike reving it's nuts off in gear and the only way i could stop the engine was to rip the plug cap off. That made me hair stand on end and i've still got the scars on my arm to prove it.

I'll mark the kill switch as advisory and delete the chain guard rule.

Thanks again for the input logical and well considered.

Paul, i will try to sort out a kill switch for my bike. I think for the clubs saftey angle if the rule is there the club is covered. thanks Steve.

[majesty320]

Quote (Thanks for the input Mick but dont agree with you on the class issue i feel we need the 5 classes. Firstly to encourage more class winners to move up and give others a chance).

Im quite new to trials, I only came to it as an adult. When I was younger I raced MX bikes in the AMCA. For your first event everybody started in the Juniors whether you were 14 or 65, as it was classed on ability not age. Once you had won a few events then you had to move up to the next class whether you wanted to or not, In the case of MX Seniors then Experts. Can somebody tell me why this type of thing is not adopted in trials, and why people who regulaly win the clubman class are not forced to move up to the experts. It would also improve their own developement as they would face more of a challenge and there-by become a better rider and also give others something to aspire to. This is only my opinion and may have already been tried and failed for some reason, if so I would like to hear why. Regards Mark

Edited February 16, 2012 by majesty320

[old trials fanatic]

Quote (Thanks for the input Mick but dont agree with you on the class issue i feel we need the 5 classes. Firstly to encourage more class winners to move up and give others a chance).

Im quite new to trials, I only came to it as an adult. When I was younger I raced MX bikes in the AMCA. For your first event everybody started in the Juniors whether you were 14 or 65, as it was classed on ability not age. Once you had won a few events then you had to move up to the next class whether you wanted to or not, In the case of MX Seniors then Experts. Can somebody tell me why this type of thing is not adopted in trials, and why people who regulaly win the clubman class are not forced to move up to the experts. It would also improve their own developement as they would face more of a challenge and there-by become a better rider and also give others something to aspire to. This is only my opinion and may have already been tried and failed for some reason, if so I would like to hear why. Regards Mark

Hi Mark i can not speak for other clubs so i will just put my own clubs point of view on this. At face value your comments make a lot of sense however you have to remember some of the riders in the Clubman class are over 60, some very much over 60, and they ride this class because they are unable to tackle the more severe routes. Same with the Intermediate class BTW. Riders of this age, without trying to be ageist as i'm one of them, are not bothered about their personal development just grateful to be able to still ride their bike in some cases. Incidentally i will be riding up a class this year i just hope i'm up to it Looking at it another way a rider may be good enough to win the Clubman or Intermediate class but feels the extra challenge of riding the harder route in full too daunting for them, remember again with older riders some have given up on development they are just happy to be able to still ride, now this is why i have introduced the two Classic routes which are basically 50/50 routes but as 50/50 implies that they will be half and half i didnt want to call them that because i wanted the option of at some venues perhaps running just 3 harder options and at other venues maybe 6 or 7.

Trials is a sport that is, or should i say should be, more easy going than some other forms of Motor Sport, ok there are rules but nothing like the RAC Blue book and scrutineering happy memories of rallying an RS2000 when scrutineering was like going to the dentist , and sometimes forcing somebody to ride sections that are too daunting just results in the person packing it in. Then again there are the dreaded Health and Safety implications.

You see one of the biggest differences between Moto Cross and Trials is that all classes in Moto Cross ride the same course which is not the case in Trials with the classes riding routes of differing severity. Same as in Road Racing anybody can get round Silverstone but only a few could get around a BTC or higher course.

Well thats my viewpoint and i hope it helps somewhat to explain why we have done what we have?

Edited February 16, 2012 by Old trials fanatic

[old trials fanatic]

Paul, i will try to sort out a kill switch for my bike. I think for the clubs saftey angle if the rule is there the club is covered. thanks Steve.

Always happy to sell you one Steve

[totalshell]

massive twin shocks entry at todays red rode trial.. fascinating collection of bikes including merlin fantic yamaha honda montesa bultaco swm suzuki. the pre65 still largely out numbered the twin shocks 46 v 26.

peformance wise in the hard route the pre 65 bikes out shone the twinshocks easily in pre 65 you had to drop less than 20 to be top ten or 36 to be top 15 in the twin shocks you could drop 27 and 55 respectaively to achive the same place finish

the difference was even more marked but the result was the same in the clubman class, the best placed clubman twinshock would have been 9th in the pre65 class!!

overwhelmingly the majority of the pre65 stuff was specialist gear whilst in the twinshocks mods were few and far between with most bikes stock the only exceptions being forks.. 38mm is the route being taken with a mix of modern monoshock folks and yolks been used under an argument discussed above.. why pay money to have stuff as good as it was in 1980 when you can spend 100 quid at telford and get a complete front end from a recent mono shock.. a bit of alloy welding for the brake plate etc and job done..

Edited February 19, 2012 by totalshell