Pre65 Class Bikes

[john collins]

An interesting post chaps, but unfortunately one which everyone thinks everyone else should be sorting it out.

We have a saying in Wales that everyone complains about the rain , but no sod does anything about it

Let us actually look at doing something about it – and as someone suggests, why do the ACU not do something? Well perhaps we should try – but also perhaps we already have?

Over the years in the Sammy Miller series for example we have stipulated many rules regarding eligibility for various classes, and the actual results have been fairly obvious – as soon as a regulation is formed – some people seem to take an obtuse delight in trying to circumnavigate it.

What actually annoys me the most is that I have noticed that some who have shouted loudest for strict uniform rules , are often then the ones I see at an event who have deviated from said rules. Often of course their answer is that well I think it is OK to have this – but not OK to have that ie never mind the rules, I will enforce the ones I like?

In simple terms, dress it up any way you like, but if there are eligibility rules in place, and someone deviates from them – pure and simple they are cheating

So what can be done ? It is possible ( just) to arrive at some eligibility criteria – and we do ( more on that later) BUT – now they have to be enforced and this is where the big problem comes

Someone stated that the Sec of meeting should have a “ glance” at the machine and decide if it was correct?

If we look in the Regs available, I am fairly sure we will see that often than not, the poor old Sec of Meeting is the wife, girlfriend, daughter etc of someone in the Club who has been press ganged into service. I can assure you it is hard enough to find someone to do this ( and I do know as I do it several times a year myself) - now we would be looking for someone to not only carry out administration on the day – but nip out and have a glance at the machines – I pose the question how these people would have the knowledge to see if the carb was wrong, the forks were really Gas Gas turned down and inserted into British outer cases, or the frame manufactured to modern dimensions and geometry etc etc etc

In fact, even if we look to machine examiners, once again they are exactly that. They will examine a machine for the normal requirements. They to are doing a voluntary job , how many would have the extensive knowledge to be able to identify each and every fiddle? How many wish to actually throw riders out or be involved in the inevitable arguments ( if you believe there will not be any you also believe in Father Xmas)

I suppose, it may be possible to find a few with real specialist knowledge – and if riders were prepared to pay these could be sent to events from various areas within the UK? What events would they go to? All of them ie every Pre 65 event ? Would they get paid ? Would travel be paid? If so why pay them and let all the other volunteers do it for sod all?

I quite liked the post that someone suggested that at end of a Trial the machine could be " bought" for £xxxx pounds. This actual happens in horse racing where they have a " seller race" , but unfortunately I do not see us being to keen to be able to purcase someones pride and joy even if it is not an expensive fiddle - good idea to get a few cheap bikes however!!

Finally just for some light relief – let us conduct an experiment

Can we have suggestions for the things that should be checked ? And things that are not regarded as having to be original –in other words – can we establish some eligibility rules for a Pre 65 machine – THAT CAN BE CHECKED WITHOUT TOO MUCH HASSLE

I challenge 10 posts to agree?

[old trials fanatic]

You'll NEVER get even two posts to agree and firstly i still feel the term "Pre 65" is the main stumbling block. Why rule out a Cheetah or AJS 37A ? just because they were made after 31/12/1964 then again why allow square barrel cubs etc etc. Surely if Pre 70 or British Bike was adopted it wouldnt be so bad and open to abuse? err then again perhaps it would.

1. British motor externally as was. Internals free.

2. Forks max 35mm dia but otherwise use what you like as they will anyway.

3. Frame design as was i.e. Cubs and C15 had swan neck headstocks so they must still have. Material free. Rear shocks to retain original mounting positions.

4. Wheels and hubs free. They'll only copy out of unobtainium.

5. Brakes drum only.

6. Tyres fitted with tubes only no tubeless.

Any bike not complying rides as a special.

And you could probably drive a bus through that too. In reality it's too late plus as you say John without enforcement it's all irrelevant anyway.

I personally feel the only thing to do now is to ensure that the sections are laid out so that the ubertricked up bikes are not able to exploit their expensive advantages.

Gives us all something to argue about though eh?

[charlie prescott]

Hi Guy's,

Hi John, You know what we feel should happen, has you have spent time taking to my friend I understand.

Still think a Scrutineer, should be applied with knowledge of British built bikes, like road racing, no one argued with that. I remember being at a trial where Wrighty was doing just this job. And although there were jovial arguments. And the four stud fork issue came up a lot, Riders did not mind there bikes being checked. If necessary surly a small fee could be added to the entry fee, to pay the scrutineer for his travelling expenses.

I think the tags should now be Brit-Bike, Brit-Shock, and for bikes like the Sprite, Trick-Shocks. (Who does own that bike?) The scrutineer would just grade the bikes presented into one of these classes. Simples.

Regards Charlie.

[totalshell]

not going to happen and heres why.. i m a nobody, my bikes legit i aint going to win the toss never mind an award so i certainly dont want to be paying extra for someones travelling expences at every trial i do.

it takes nothing for the organisers to have a suitable person noting bikes at the first section, and classing the bikes there and then if they are entered in the right class..no discussions with riders nothing.. no probs leave alone, if not re classify them in the appropriate class, the rider has 14 days from results to protest.. simple. or eeven simpler have anybody photograph the starters at the first section and if they are top three in class check the photos sat round the fire with all the information to hand and re classify if req before posting final results you only have to check 18 bikes photos.

[john collins]

Without looking at actual classes etc - which may or may not be a good thing ( we sure as hell have messed about a fair bit with them in past) - this could be another post topic - can I return to my post asking if we could have some suggestions on what could/should be checked?

OTF seems to be the only person who has actually has come up with a list , which I think would be very similar to my own - and I would like to look at it in a bit more detail

I am afraid however that as I think most of us are aware we come back to actual checking. I am not sure that Totalshell's idea a would actually work , although I understand the principle - and actually the point of making the check at a section is a very good one and one that I have not heard a lot before ( it is done in FIM Enduro for example where marked parts are checked and also happens to marked parts in FIM trials) , this prevents the rider turning up for machine examination and passing and then swiftly changing a few things back at van?

I am afraid if we arrive at a definitive list , it still needs someone with a fair amount of knowledge to be able to check and therefore enforce it.

I think I have a fair Technical knowledge of motorcycles , and probably a lot more than many of the volunteers we manage to attract and are extremely grateful for to do the machine examining – but using myself as an example if I were to be a machine examiner, and looking at OTF points

Pt 1 - Yes good – I do not see a great deal of problem with this one

2 - No big problem as long as machine examiner had a Vernier or other calliper of better still just a simple gauge we could easily have made ie a 35mm slot in a piece of metal. We could insert a rule that fork stanchion must be exposed ie not hidden

3. I could not do. Perhaps in past I could have – but now I would not have enough knowledge to justify throwing someone out. Yes for sure some are obvious others are not . I would not be comfortable excluding someone for not having say a swan neck headstock , but allowing someone else with extensive frame mods( but not so obvious) to still ride in class. The examination of frames and particularly frame dimensions and geometry is far too complicated – for many of us at least. If you have a particular interest and are up to date with it all great – but many would not be – including me.

4. I agree totally

5. I totally agree

6 - A real debate !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So – a fair bit if this is possible – but surely not that extensive a list.

I do not think the present Sammy Miller criteria is that far out is it?

BUT – the problem remains – someone has to be able to check it.

Finally just let me play devils advocate

I have never played golf – so may be wrong, but to my limited knowledge, some guys go around 18 holes , sometimes in pairs – and write on a piece of paper how many shots took to get the ball in each hole?

It does seem to me that if they actually took 4 shots – nothing prevents them writing down 3 as long as both think this is acceptable? I think the whole scoring think is more or less self policed?

So, rather than us all talking about specialised machine examiners with fairly extensive knowledge about all the technical points we have talked about – and perhaps travelling all over to the events could we accept the following:

·

Machine examining more or less as is with the hard working Officials doing basic checks as they now do

·

ACU draw up some eligibility criteria and write it down in the handbook – as they do now.

Next – it must surely be acknowledged that there is a huge and extensive knowledge of all these things by those who ride the actual machines – many build them etc and many would be around shows, read books and magazines etc . So I conclude that in any Classic event there will be lots and lots of riders with the knowledge required - they would all have the regulations for that event – and they would all have a current handbook or CD and would be able to be easily aware of any criteria/classes etc

So - if there are riders circumnavigating the rules - another rider puts in a Protest against eligibility

Now – I know the nonsense about other riders not wishing to rock the boat, snitch, grass, call it what you like – but if it became the “NORM” that it was acknowledged that riders would police it themselves with no criticism or repercussions etc , would it not work?

I may be a very radical thought – but could it not be possible that those enjoying the sport take some responsibility for identifying the cheats – rather than expecting those working hard to put the events on do this task because riders have ignored the set down regulations ( despite signing to say they are abiding by them)

Or am I being very naive in my old age?

[totalshell]

i cant comment about other clubs but we do have a clear if contentious to some set of rules,

no one checks a bike before the off it all seems very simple. HOWEVER we do have two excellent knowledgable 'machine examiniers' who if they see or become aware of an issue will quietly observe the bike.

i have witnessed riders both informed that xyz should really be abc, asked to change xyz for abc, told to change xyz to abc or simply asked not to use the bike again whilst it sports xyz.

such is the respect for the examiners ive not witnessed xyz remain permantly in place once identified.

however i will note that even some very experienced competitors will and do, go to some extraordianry lengths to make xyz look like abc..

PS if anyone has any xyz.. how much do you want for it..

[charlie prescott]

I agree with OTF's list, bar for "3" the frame, you know and I know there were a lot of modified frames about in the sixties, and the second bike we bought a C15T from Commerfords came with the frame modified only two years from new. Has for the gooseneck frames, we all know that there are Super lightweight copies of these being used and totally undetectable without real knowledge. There were also oil-in the-frame, frames being used at that time as well. So this is really my strongest point that the Pre 65 tab be dropped in favour of say Britshocks for bikes with shocks fitted. I agree riders could police them selves, but the word would soon be out who the snitch was, and this would only spoil the atmosphere of these types of events, where has a person with some authority to do this simple task and whose word was final would not create upset. I do think it is a good idea though to have this person on one of the first few sections, and seem to remember this from the past.

Regards Charlie.

[old trials fanatic]

Agree with JC about the self policing aspect, well i would because this is how we do it at Peak Classic, because at the end of the day surely it's the riders themselves who should or shouldnt be bothered if somebody else is "cheating" or gaining an obvious advantage by circumnavigating or blatantly ignoring the rules. Now as for rules. I got more than a bit fed up with the lack of ANY so i decided to "put up or shut up" and created some for our club as previously we had piggy backed on the East Midland ACU Classic Championship ones but as i've previously stated it didnt seem right to do that anymore as we are now AMCA.

At least now we at Peak Classic have some rules which may or may not meet with everybodys approval, only complaints have been about oversize gas gas front ends and tubless tyres and rims no longer being allowed and a bike so fitted would have to ride in the specials class, and i have already amended them for this year. Thing is if you have some eligability rules you can discuss and fine tune them if you dont have any you cant do anything can you???

We desperately need something that can then be discussed and ratified with a stability period so people know where they are when building or entering a bike. If it's there and published, plus the clubs agree to abide by it not just opt out, then everybody knows where they are. Surely thats better than having a bike thats "legal" at one club and a special or banned the next week at another clubs event?

Edited March 5, 2012 by Old trials fanatic

[greeves]

Hi John: Nice to read you in this topic.

Nobody in my country wants to listen to what I say about modified and tuned bikes, I have a lot of information about bikes modifications, rules etc. achieved out of so many persons and clubs in the UK and France I have talked about this topic in the past years, and also what is posted in this interesting TC forum topic.

It is quite funny to realize that we in Spain are now making exactly the same mistakes you British did in the past with the classic bikes.

RFME had very simple rules for classic bikes, that can be resumed in "YOU CAN NOT USE COMPONENTS OF MORE MODERN BIKES THAN THE CATEGORY YOUR BIKE RACES IN" (with some exceptions as handlebars, plastics, shocks...), (for example post72 engines in pre72 bikes, modern forks in classic bikes etc. etc.). easy to comply but they have been never enforced them, and you could see really "modern classics" in Spanish trials.

But very funny to know RFME is working actually in new rules, we are waiting for them as it looks there are almost ready, but it looks they are much harder.

I think exactly as you do John, it will be a waist of time, effort, money and will gonna loose the good humor to kore than one pilot and trial official.

I will of course post here the new rules as soon as they are published, it will be good to know new opinions.

[woody]

Will it really make any difference now to Pre65 trials to try and draft some standardised rules? Is it even possible when you have clubs in all centres who have their own interpretation of what they think works, ACU and AMCA clubs, national events, bespoke, one-off events - and then there is the Pre65 Scottish.

Like it or not, anyone building, modifying or buying a Pre65 bike has to look to the Pre65 Scottish as the yard stick because if they want to ride it (and over 400 riders each year do) then that is the spec your bike must conform to. Go anywhere else in the UK and there is a class that will accomodate, either Pre65, Pre70 or specials. The Scottish has no specials class, you either conform or not. It is the driver for how people build their bikes.

As I've mentioned before, it seems only this trial that causes the problems. Anywhere else you go, Miller rounds, PJ1 rounds, individual club trials, I very rarely (can't remember ever) hearing complaints between competitors about another's bike. So, is there a problem? Modernised bikes have been the norm for 15 years or so now, the terms trick, cheat or fiddle no longer apply. No-one is trying to fool anyone anymore that their bike is standard 'underneath the clothes'. We all know how they are built now. Is it really an issue? The last PJ1 round that I rode, there were full on modernised bikes running in the same class as some fairly standard bikes. As you can imagine, the riders at the sharp end of the results are on modernised bikes, the riders back from that have a mix of modernised and standard. No-one complains (to the best of my knowledge) The same riders will win if everyone was on a standard bike (or maybe they wouldn't as half the entry wouldn't be there....)

So, how do you now categorise a special? Take a look at the pictures below. An original spec (I think) Francis Barnett followed by a modern equivalent. Both of these bikes would compete in the same class, Pre65 (or Pre70 depending on club / event etc) No disparity there then...

Now take this bike (my old C15)

This bike has an original 1959 frame (ie: bloody heavy) Disregard the front end for the moment, assume it is the same spec as the modern FB above, therefore compliant. Based upon some regulations, this bike couldn't compete in the Pre65/70 class because the rear subframe has been altered (lowered and narrowed) and the shock mounts moved. That's all and nothing that couldn and wasn't done back in its era.

Now, is it just me or am I alone in banging my head up the wall because of the sheer folly of this. The FB, built from new replica lightweight parts is Pre65 and the BSA is a special. Am I being unbreasonable in my view on this, am I missing something? It's all about 'silhouette', is that what I'm missing? Yes, it obvious that the modern FB looks just like the original, you'd never tell them apart going up pipeline...

Back to the BSA and we'll take the front end. Ossa forks, painted black, look Pre65 as they are just straight tubes. Yokes, alloy billet look-a-likes. Front wheel an old Grimeca dug from the shed. If the fins are machined off the hub and it is polished it looks just like a Rickman or one of Millers new billet patterns. But it isn't acceptable becuase it's Italian, just like the fork internals and ignition on the modern FB. It isn't as effective as the front end on the modern FB but it is considered 'special'.

To me there is just no sense in these rules. As I've said before (many times...) I don't have a single problem with the modernised bikes but the rules are crazy. When a brand new bike can be considered Pre65 and a 50 year old bike is a special just because someone has modified the subframe and shock position (modified, not modernised) something is wrong. Really, it is.

If something is to be done do it properly. If a bike has ANY component on it that wasn't available before 1965 then it goes in the specials class. That's it in a nutshell. Modernised in any way means it's no longer standard, it's in the specials, it's no longer Pre65 spec. Scrutineering, if any was done, would be easier as the only bikes you'd have to examine would be the standard class. The specials would be self-policing as if anyone turned up with a Sherco front end the others would have something to say about it. The bikes can't really go any further now anyway...

I have no vested interest in this and honestly don't care which direction it goes in as I know what my own solution to it will be. I'm just trying to play devil's advocate and illustrate what a nonsense this eligibility criteria is. Personally I'd leave things as they are, I can't see that a new set of rules will change anything.

As I've said before, Scotland is the driver for bike spec as they don't take 'specials' (well, only about 7/8ths of the entry)

And next year there may be a minimum seat height to worry about in that event, so don't go drafting any rules just yet...

Edited March 5, 2012 by Woody

[old trials fanatic]

"If a bike has ANY component on it that wasn't available before 1965 then it goes in the specials class. That's it in a nutshell. Modernised in any way means it's no longer standard, it's in the specials, it's no longer Pre65 spec. Scrutineering, if any was done, would be easier as the only bikes you'd have to examine would be the standard class."

OK the above post by Woodie makes sort of sense until you really sit down and think about it. Tyres? err you cant buy the tyres that were used prior to 31/12/1964. Shocks ditto. Cables bars levers throttle mudguards oils spark plugs plug caps fuel tube ignition leads etc can all be bought but at a considerable cost plus most of them dont really work that well. Then we have the problem that i would like to bet if you could actually find an original machine, lets just imagine you are doctor who or have a delorean, i seriously doubt it could get round or finish the Scottish Pre65 2 day riding the sections exactly as they will be when run this year.

It's an interresting discussion topic but Woodies right in a way the whole Pre65 thing is driven by the obsession that some have about the Scottish and that aint gonna change in my opinion.

As for the seat height issue i bet it wont be applied in reality blindly across the board but i've already got a few ideas about how to get around that one.

[woody]

OK the above post by Woodie makes sort of sense until you really sit down and think about it. Tyres? err you cant buy the tyres that were used prior to 31/12/1964. Shocks ditto. Cables bars levers throttle mudguards oils spark plugs plug caps fuel tube ignition leads etc can all be bought but at a considerable cost plus most of them dont really work that well.

Then we have the problem that i would like to bet if you could actually find an original machine, lets just imagine you are doctor who or have a delorean, i seriously doubt it could get round or finish the Scottish Pre65 2 day riding the sections exactly as they will be when run this year.

Just to pick up on those two points.

The fact that they don't work that well (and that is just about everything as most of it was 20 years old design/technology even then...) is why everyone began updating them with modern parts. And there you have it in a nutshell. For original spec, tyres would be the only modern concession. Hagon do old style shocks, chrome rims, original hubs are all available etc. Cost can't come into it given what is spent on the modernised versions, you'd come nowhere near. But what would you rather have out of the two FB bikes in the pictures. I know which one I'd be riding...

As for the Scottish sections, it's subjective I know, but it isn't that hard a trial in terms of section severity. The original FB in the picture would do it comfortably enough. You would drop more marks on it than the modernised bike but it would cope well enough. You'd be surprised. The Pre65 isn't as hard on the rider or bike as the 6 day from the 60s.

Edited March 5, 2012 by Woody

[greeves]

As I've said before, Scotland is the driver for bike spec as they don't take 'specials' (well, only about 7/8ths of the entry)

And next year there may be a minimum seat height to worry about in that event, so don't go drafting any rules just yet...

This is the only part in which I honestly and friendly disagree with you Dave.

I don´t think Scotland´s pre65 trial is the drive of the specification. It is just one trial compared to the hundreds of classic and pre65 trials that are arranged in UK and outside your borders every weekend, full of different categories (experts, clubmans, pre units, units, two or four strokes, rigids, pre72, pre77, pre80...) trials were so many people want to be the winner and arrive home with a cup. In Scotland just one can do so...

The Scottish pre65 is THE pilgrimage site for trials riders worlwide.

And the most important thing is that I honestly belive that whoever works and arranges for a trial is/are the one/ones that must decide freely about their event, with no conditions at all, specially coming from sponsors.

That is why I posted when I opened this topic about leaving apart the Scottish pre65.

As I consider you my friend, and for your information (now that nobody can hear me), let me tell you that the James in the pic you attached WAS actually my James (exactly that one bought to a known rider that use to sing country..). And I say was because I just sold it and bought a new "weapon" (a different James) much more like that FB you show there, not finished yet, as I am looking for the proper tank as you can see in the TC Wanted adverts.

Personal choice of course.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Greeves

[old trials fanatic]

Just to pick up on those two points.

The fact that they don't work that well (and that is just about everything as most of it was 20 years old design/technology even then...) is why everyone began updating them with modern parts. And there you have it in a nutshell. For original spec, tyres would be the only modern concession. Hagon do old style shocks, chrome rims, original hubs are all available etc. Cost can't come into it given what is spent on the modernised versions, you'd come nowhere near. But what would you rather have out of the two FB bikes in the pictures. I know which one I'd be riding...

As for the Scottish sections, it's subjective I know, but it isn't that hard a trial in terms of section severity. The original FB in the picture would do it comfortably enough. You would drop more marks on it than the modernised bike but it would cope well enough. You'd be surprised. The Pre65 isn't as hard on the rider or bike as the 6 day from the 60s.

Thing is Dave a lot of the sections from the early 60's are now just the route between the sections of today that was what i was refering to. The other thing is, as we have both said previously countless times, that who in their right minds would want to ride an original bike as was in the scottish pre 65? and if so have they sought medication?

Edited March 6, 2012 by Old trials fanatic

[old trials fanatic]

This is the only part in which I honestly and friendly disagree with you Dave.

I don´t think Scotland´s pre65 trial is the drive of the specification. It is just one trial compared to the hundreds of classic and pre65 trials that are arranged in UK and outside your borders every weekend, full of different categories (experts, clubmans, pre units, units, two or four strokes, rigids, pre72, pre77, pre80...) trials were so many people want to be the winner and arrive home with a cup. In Scotland just one can do so...

The Scottish pre65 is THE pilgrimage site for trials riders worlwide.

And the most important thing is that I honestly belive that whoever works and arranges for a trial is/are the one/ones that must decide freely about their event, with no conditions at all, specially coming from sponsors.

That is why I posted when I opened this topic about leaving apart the Scottish pre65.

As I consider you my friend, and for your information (now that nobody can hear me), let me tell you that the James in the pic you attached WAS actually my James (exactly that one bought to a known rider that use to sing country..). And I say was because I just sold it and bought a new "weapon" (a different James) much more like that FB you show there, not finished yet, as I am looking for the proper tank as you can see in the TC Wanted adverts.

Personal choice of course.

Sorry Javier i have to dissagree with you about Scotland. One of the first things that always crops up here when someone is talking about a British Bike is "ah but thats NOT scottish legal is it!!!" I cant say about in Europe and i do totally agree with you about it's only one trial out of hundreds but in the UK if you ride Pre65 you will make sure you have at least one bike that is scottish legal in the shed. You might not use it week in week out but it's there just in case.

I've never had a problem with organisers rules just with how they apply them and i dont just single the scottish out for that. It's their trial and they can organise it as they see fit at least they publish the eligability rules so you can try to build a legal bike. to be realistic Javier the scottish was bound to come up in this thread at some point as it IS the driver over here.

Best of luck this year mate

Edited March 6, 2012 by Old trials fanatic