Pre65 Class Bikes

[woody]

While being scrutineered at the pre65 Kinlochleven a competitor with some trick Ariel made the comment "if Ariel had the knowledge we have they wood have built their bikes like mine" , Alec Smith looked around the car park picked out a Monty 4RT and said "wrong that's what they would have built"

Trialing is a discipline,it always has been,always will be,there are no "idiotic rules" just rules,trialing cannot exist with out them that's the way it is, like it or lump it.Hit a card it's a five,the card is not in the wrong place,it's where the Clark of the course put it,it's your job to miss it.

Tam, don't know why you're referring to trial rules when I was referring to regulation rules.

Sorry to disagree but there are idiotic rules and most reside on Pre65 machine eligibility regulations.

You can have brand new billett machined yokes for

[broony]

Woody think the main problem with Pre 65 is that the Hymn

book is that big that people are signing from different

pages.What trials need is to follow one set of regs/spec ,I was

involved in road racing for many years and in classic racing

there is a set of rules/specs which nearly every club in the UK use

,they belong to the CRMC.The only thing is that the horse has well

and truly bolted and it'll take more than a bucket of oats

to get the bugger back.I'm building a C15 which is not full of trick

bits(as I said at the beginning of this post is that there are no hard and fast regs./specs-I would love a fit a Mikuni,jap forks/wheels and other bits and pieces)but without a proper guide line I'm making it pretty standard.It'll weigh a ton and handle like a clothes horse and

be totally gutless.Weren't they all like that

cheers the noo Brian

Edited February 17, 2012 by broony

[tamdodds]

I cant understand how you can think a bike with billet alloy slab yokes looks like a pre65 bike.It's funny how every body always seems to have far better things lying around in their work shop. When putting together a C 15 they don't find a pair of 1952 Triumph Terrier forks, they just happen to find a Fantic front end lying in a bin and it fits no bother. Wullie Robertson from our club has just built one of the best Greeves 250's I have ever rode,he set himself the task of using as many genuine parts as he could (iron barrel,gears,piston,all engine parts,frame,tank,wheel rims and hubs),his forks and yolks are MP's. This bike looks pre 65,it's performance is truly astounding. Yes it does have modern foot pegs, shocks and ignition. It is heavy but performs to such a high standard that Wullie came first in a local trial finishing above the monos. Most of what you say is in the right direction, but my point is get the rules in place for twin shocks now and we wont be sitting here going over the same stuff in 10 years time. There seems no point in deciding to ride in classic trials and inventing a new bike to ride in them. How is the 'clark of the course' going to lay out a trial for twin shocks when you turn up on something with disc brakes, hydraulic clutch and 14 inches off travel. Just pull out the old bultos, TY's,monty's and fantic's, prep them properly and ride them the way they were made,thanks.Tam

Edited February 16, 2012 by tamdodds

[old trials fanatic]

I cant understand how you can think a bike with billet alloy slab yokes looks like a pre65 bike.It's funny how every body always seems to have far better things lying around in their work shop. When putting together a C 15 they don't find a pair of 1952 Triumph Terrier forks, they just happen to find a Fantic front end lying in a bin and it fits no bother. Wullie Robertson from our club has just built one of the best Greeves 250's I have ever rode,he set himself the task of using as many genuine parts as he could (iron barrel,gears,piston,all engine parts,frame,tank,wheel rims and hubs),his forks and yolks are MP's. This bike looks pre 65,it's performance is truly astounding. Yes it does have modern foot pegs, shocks and ignition. It is heavy but performs to such a high standard that Wullie came first in a local trial finishing above the monos. Most of what you say is in the right direction, but my point is get the rules in place for twin shocks now and we wont be sitting here going over the same stuff in 10 years time. There seems no point in deciding to ride in classic trials and inventing a new bike to ride in them. How is the 'clark of the course' going to lay out a trial for twin shocks when you turn up on something with disc brakes, hydraulic clutch and 14 inches off travel. Just pull out the old bultos, TY's,monty's and fantic's, prep them properly and ride them the way they were made,thanks.Tam

I cant agree with you more Tam. Well said.

[b40rt]

It's funny how every body always seems to have far better things lying around in their work shop. When putting together a C 15 they don't find a pair of 1952 Triumph Terrier forks, they just happen to find a Fantic front end lying in a bin and it fits no bother.

The often used argument is that if you have a modern front end lying about it makes economic sense to use it. However, everyone riding with standard forks then have to go to the considerable time and expense to compete on a level playing field.

Edited February 16, 2012 by B40RT

[old trials fanatic]

After a conversation i had today with a manufacturer and supplier of a lot of these upgrade and billet parts they have recieved a lot of adverse communications about the fitting of said parts. Now lets get this straight everybody is entitled to an opinion but the onus is on the rider to ensure that their machine complies fully with whatever eligability regulations are in force for the event they are entering in.

People with a disposable income will always spend it how they like on whatever they like. You cant blame anybody for manufacturing something that people want to buy they are only like the rest of us trying to make ends meet. The manufacturer is not the clerk of the course if you dissagree with the rules lobby the club or CoC.

Some people like to build a bike to different criteria than others and if you are honest you know that a top rider on a non trick bike will always beat a midfield rider on the trickest of trick things. Thats the beauty of trials. Anyway if the sections are laid out to suit Classic Bikes ridden in a Classic style the bling will not give you any advantage other than perhaps help with your confidence which is probably the trickest addition you could ever fit

So lets be realistic if everybody wanted EXACT copies of period parts because none of the originals were available then someone would make them thats supply and demand. Oh yes and he wished that before people made statements about his products they would get their facts straight by asking him first as some have made statements that to be generous are way from the truth.

Only put this on as i do see his point and felt it only right to say something.

As Elton said "Dont shoot me i'm only the piano player"

Lets keep discussions about the rules about the rules.

[old trials fanatic]

The often used argument is that if you have a modern front end lying about it makes economic sense to use it. However, everyone riding with standard forks then have to go to the considerable time and expense to compete on a level playing field.

Couldnt say it better myself.

[woody]

I cant understand how you can think a bike with billet alloy slab yokes looks like a pre65 bike.

I don't and where did I say that - the Pre65 Scottish, Yorkshire Classic and other club's regulations which state that 'original or replica yokes' can be used obviously do. By definition thererfore, they consider them to look of Pre65 replica appearance

I was just illustrating the utterly ridiculous situation that prevails with these rules that out of several sets of yokes currently available, all of near identical appearance, one set is not allowed because it 'isn't Pre65'.

I feel that you're misunderstanding or taking things that I say out of context and missing the points I'm trying to make clear.

In a nutshell:-

Pe65 bikes have been 'modified with later components' for the last 20 odd years. I HHAVE NO ISSUE WITH THE MODIFIED PRE65 BIKES and it's none of my business whether someone wants to spend

[woody]

So lets be realistic if everybody wanted EXACT copies of period parts because none of the originals were available then someone would make them thats supply and demand. Oh yes and he wished that before people made statements about his products they would get their facts straight by asking him first as some have made statements that to be generous are way from the truth.

I hope this isn't as a result of something I've said as it is the eligibility rules I have the issues with, not the manufactures of the parts - see post above

And the first line in your above paragraph hits the nail on the head. If EVERYONE was happy riding an original spec bike, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. Or would we?

Assume the modernisation of British bikes had never occured, they were all still as they were Pre65. Then someone bought Miller's genuine, original spec Pre65 Ariel to ride in the Pre-unit class, with all its special (for the time) parts not available to anyone else, would people riding their standard spec bikes be happy at the 'unfair advantage' they gave, or would they want to modify and improve theirs to the same spec?

Didn't the BSA riders have special alloy barrels but painted black to make them look standard in appearance to customers who couldn't buy them? I wonder how many friends of BSA riders may have acquired one at the time?

There is absolutely nothing new in modifying the bikes.

There is a simple solution.

If the Scottish want to make their trial for original spec bikes it is within their power to do so. ANYTHING not carrying original Pre65 parts goes in a specials class and does not qualify for an award or the outright winner's award. That includes frames, yokes etc etc. That way the specials can still ride and they may win the event outright on points lost, but riders of standard machines take the awards.

ANY club or series/championship can do the same thing. Run standard and modified bike classes amongst the various capacity classes. ANY bike not carrying original Pre65 parts goes in the specials classes.

This way both camps are happy, those that like the modified bikes and those that only want standard bikes. They are competing like against like, no 'unfair advantage', winners in both classes.

This way, the riders that like to ride modified bikes can continue to do so and no-one need gripe at suppliers of these parts as they have a class for their standard bikes and are not put at any disadvantage by them.

Exceptions may want to be made for modern ignitions as no-one wants to break down because of inefficient old electrics which fail.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

[woody]

Right - time to take stock of this.

Having now spoken to someone about this subject, it's apparent that what started out as a discussion about Pre65 rules and regulations may have turned into a bit of a witch hunt on some people in the trade.

I have to say right now that I am pretty sickened by this, even moreso if a discussion I have been part of has been the cause. It seems that some people are taking exception to what is being done to bikes in the Pre65 scene and having a go at those they deem responsible.

This is not only cowardly, it is totally unjust.

The only people who are 'responsible' for 'what has happened' with Pre65 are the riders who want to modify their bikes. It is called freedom of choice to modify your bike if you so wish. Current regulations allow it and always have. Some riders are talented engineers who can make components themselves. Others can barely strike a match to light a blow torch and therefore approach other people to do the work for them.

From this, a cottage industry of talented people has arisen over the years who make some beautiful components with which people can modify their bikes. They are wonderful examples of British engineering at its best and show what may have been possible all those years ago if lazy, uninspired, narrow-minded management had allowed people's ideas to get onto the drawing board and into production.

No matter how specialised these bikes are today, the hub of them all is still a British engine from the 50/60s. A lot of what is being done now could have been done then. The 250 Villiers engine is an excellent powerplant with simple improvements to exhaust, ignition and carburettor making a huge difference to how it performs. The basic lump is pretty good in its own right. Imagine how it could have been if just a fraction of what is being done now had been done then. Proper development and funding, 5 speed gearbox, it could have been an engine to rival the Spanish motors. Development of a trials bike was well within our grasp too. Bultaco succeeded because one of our own went over there and developed it for them. What might have been you can only wonder.

Now we appear to have the same sort of attidude surfacing again with people seemingly out to 'stop the rot' in Pre65.

The news is this. There are hundreds of modified bikes out there right now and they are modified because it is what people want. There is no going back, you can't put them in the crusher, re-write the rule book and start again. People vote with their feet as the saying goes and it's pretty clear what a lot of people want. They don't want to ride standard British bikes which are big, heavy, ugly and clumsy (in the main) The voting with the feet was done and the footsteps led to the doors of people who could help them make their bikes more pleasant to ride - more competitive undoudbtedly. Imagine this. Is the near 70 year old 10 stone rider whose best days in fitness are behind him going to choose to ride a near 270lbs standard bike which may seriously hurt him in a fall, or a lightweight modernised version he can manage.

If there are people out there who disagree and want to ride standard bikes there is nothing stopping you from doing it. Time to stop the whining and get yourselves organised and run events for the type of bikes you want. Scotland needs to get its act together and decide what it wants. An exibition of days of yore or a competition with the best Pre65 riders showcasing their skills in what is considered to be the premier Pre65 event in the UK. If the latter, give up on the ridiculous regs and allow the modifications and be open about it. The silhouette philosophy is a farce and belongs in a bin.

Virtually every Pre65 event I've been to has no scrutineering and I have yet to hear any moaning about the type of bikes taking part in any of them and that is the truth. Most of the carping happens on here, the internet. Maybe it does happen but I never hear it and riders seem to readily accept the machines that are there. They know who will do the winning and understand that the people who are in the running for the winning want the best chance of doing so. They need a bike to facilitate that. A trial is a proper competition, not a rider procession. They know that if they were riding Bou's 4RT, they atill wouldn't win, so it's irrelevant to them.

So whoever is doing it, get off the backs of people who are providing a service to people who want that service. They aren't responsible for whatever it is you think they are.

At this moment I'm that p****d off with all of this and the general bull**** that seems to surround the Pre65 scene that I really feel like jacking it in and with the exception of the Manx Classic, providing I get in, which thankfully hasn't yet succumed to any of this crap, giving up on Pre65 and continuing to ride my twinshocks in mainly modern trials and the odd classic.

Maybe my last word on this but I have to reiterate - again - just in case words get twisted or misunderstood. I HAVE NEVER HAD A PROBLEM WITH MODIFIED PRE65 BIKES, I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH ANY OF THE SPECIALIST PARTS SUPPLIERS AND i HAVE NO WISH TO CAUSE ANY ILL-FEELING TOWADRS ANY OF THEM.

I AM GENUINELY SORRY IF THIS IS WHAT HAS HAPPENED.

IT IS ONLY CERTAIN RULES I DISAGREE WITH, THE KIND THAT DISPLAY THE SAME NARROW-MINDEDNESS THAT CONFINED OUR BIKE MANUFACTURING TO THE SCRAPHEAP ALL THOSE YEARS AGO

Edited February 16, 2012 by Woody

[old trials fanatic]

Dave thank you for that. VERY well put. Cant and wouldnt want to fault you and your sentiments.

[charlie prescott]

:

Hi Guy's.

Hi Dave.

After reading that, I feel that you should be President of a new committee that is promoting a Classic Trials bike sport in this, and other countries. More than that I feel you would make a first class Prime Minister. If only!!

Honestly, that is a statement that could save, and change the face of the Classic trials bike scene "Forever" well done that man!! :icon_salut:

Regards Charlie.

.

[tamdodds]

Hi Woody. Your comments hit the spot on most points, I too over the years have modified my bikes. There is not much wrong with the concept and most improvements are worth doing. A good well prepared pre65 is on par with a twin shock, at most trials they will not be at a disadvantage. As far as I can gather the modification rules were up to each club or centre . I Think we are singing from the same hymn book on this.

My main point is that classic bikes differ from monos, they are almost different sports. Mix match the parts of classic bikes and there is not an enormous advantage to be gained. When you start to add mono parts (IE brakes and hydraulics) you enter into a completely different discipline, the advantage is significant. You are then having to put on two completely different types of sections at the same trial, it dose not work, we up here have tried it and failed.

The sports governing bodies could with a few small rules sort this problem out. The rules could cover all classic trials ,this would let the sport thrive,and let us get on with laying out trials for the bikes we all love,and see them being used most weekends.

On a lighter note,look at the original photos that started this debate of, one bike is a twin shock the other a pre65, the Sprite looks like a modified Mk2 frame kit made from 67 on wards.

Edited February 17, 2012 by tamdodds

[woody]

Tam, I'm not sure I have much left to say on this topic as for one, I am still pretty disgusted with the actions of some people and two, rational discussion on a forum isn't possible on a 'big' topic - just look at the no-stop debate. It ends up personal, comments are misunderstood or taken out of context, people don't read comments properly, nothing gets resolved.

The Scottish aside, I see nothing wrong with the way things are at the moment. Modified bikes have been the norm for two decades now, yet they can still be referred to as 'cheat' or 'trick' at times. That was only the case when it began and one or two riders hid modifications to mask the advantage they gave. Those days are long past, we are where we are, it's evolved and its normal.

There is room for both sets of bikes, modified or standard, whichever individuals prefer. It is up to individual clubs how they handle it. As I mentioned before I hear no moaning from riders about other rider's bikes and none of the events I've ridden at over the years have machine examining, and that includes the various national championships (maybe a couple of times at one event only) No-one's feathers get ruffled.

A unified standard for rules is a nice idea but never will it happen. Who would ever agree anything?

Twinshocks are a different matter. Even the oldest ride pretty well and as such they don't really need altering to make them enjoyable to ride or more competitive. Different situation from the British bikes in their standard form. Footrests and position and that's about it.

There are already rules in place in the national championships to prohibit discs and converted monos. It is very rare these days to see someone with a converted mono (I just do not see the point personally, it's a nothing bike) In the main it has been pretty well self-policed by the riders themselves and the hysteria that seems to be building about 'super twinshocks' is more on the net than in the woods. If people would take a close look at some of these 'highly modified' twinshocks (there have been 3 or 4 that I can think of)and see them for what they are, they would realise that the most dramatic change is to their appearance. The performance is not really enhanced significantly, the biggest change in that area being the head angle. I've yet to see a 'super twinshock' win an event. Later reed motors, 38mm forks (although I'm not keen on that one) aren't really an issue. Obviously there are always exceptions and there will always be one or two people who push things and take the p***, just to wind others up, but that goes for all walks of life, not just trials.

[totalshell]

quite by chance i had two of my bikes out in the moors at the same time yesterday.. my francis barnett and fantic 200. the fb is a 2011 bike the fantic is stock. ive never ridden them to compare and contrast but it wasa interesting to note the subtleties.. the fb was significantly easier to ride 2'6'' steps feet up and certainly had more 'guts' low down but the fantic steered a little better and gripped more effectively and the power was more useable at the top of the revs and it has 6 spd and the kicker doesnt bite your ankles..

if forced to choose i'd ride the fantic..

the fantic owes me 810 quid all in the fb.. i darent speculate but i bet i could nt buy a new mono with the money.

Edited February 18, 2012 by totalshell