cubette Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 Now that the Regulations are available for the 2013 Pre 65 dont you think it would be well just for the organisers to refuse any entries for next years trial from riders who were excluded from this years event . In my opinion it would only seem merited , if nothing else to discourage riders from blatantly abusing the Eligibility Ruling as the 5 competitors did at this years event. Cubette Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b40rt Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 Being excluded from this years event not punishment enough ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
breagh Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 (edited) . In my opinion it would only seem merited , if nothing else to discourage riders from blatantly abusing the Eligibility Ruling as the 5 competitors did at this years event. Cubette quote Cubette doesn't seem like someone to mess with. The phrase thrown out the gestapo for cruelty springs to mind. Edited October 22, 2012 by breagh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firedfromthecircus Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 Interesting first post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old trials fanatic Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 Now that the Regulations are available for the 2013 Pre 65 dont you think it would be well just for the organisers to refuse any entries for next years trial from riders who were excluded from this years event . In my opinion it would only seem merited , if nothing else to discourage riders from blatantly abusing the Eligibility Ruling as the 5 competitors did at this years event. Cubette Would you please list the blatant abuse of the Eligability ruling that the 5 competitors you cite ? Just making sure you are fully conversant with the eligability rules they infringed and what exactly the infringements were. Looking forward to your response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizza5 Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 Here we go again I must admit it has started early. Do you think I can get my Mont 4RT thtough if I change the forks and put drum brakes on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big john Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 Getting it started early this year? Only 62 shopping days to Christmas. Aren't I lucky? I have never been hauled up for any rule breaking since I first entered the event. That tells you something - my bikes are Pre65. That is all! I'll just sit back and watch the fun now. Big John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metisse Posted October 22, 2012 Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 You are very lucky big john..and its a credit that your bikes are unmolested and original ....changing the subject , what number do you have in mind for next year.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old trials fanatic Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 Seems strangely quiet on what those infringements actually were. Thought so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie prescott Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 Hi Guy's, Hi OTF, Now I have taken a look at a vid of the Spanish boys and there infringments, Didn't make sence to me?? Think one had a Montesa front brake from the seventies fitted. Unlike most bikes with new hub brakes fitted from a friend of ours. Did he tell you how many he has sold now? Know I could not believe it either. Just ordered two for my "Faber Cub" for the trial. Hope the boy gets an entry, with the thousands I have spent on the NEW bike. Regards Charlie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubette Posted October 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 Old trials fanatic I needn’t be fully conversant with the rules as it was stated on the regulations Competitors are reminded that , by completing this entry form , they are declaring that the machine they will ride is eligible for this event .The presentation of a machine which does not comply with the eligibility requirements, may result in exclusion and/or the rejection of any future entry from the rider concerned . You can find the regulations from 2012 & 2013 on the ssdt.org website which state same. This website also carries a Report from the 2012 event , it is officially reported here that , Eligibility was the main issue with the 2012 event with the disqualification of 5 riders following the machine check prior to the Friday start. These riders had declared components on the eligibility form but the components fitted to the bikes were not as stated. Due to this falsification these riders were taken out of the trial but were eventually allowed to start on a “ No Award “ basis as a goodwill gesture. This should be a warning to others to ensure that the information given is accurate and true so please take heed. Big John, Aye up only 62 days or so left for the Christmas shopping , never any doubt of your prep’d bikes a leading specimen to others. Unfortunately in my opinion these “ 5 entrants “ seem to totally disrespect that the Club ,who have spent I’m sure the best part of the previous 12 months preparing this unique event for them to compete and yet cannot merely comply with the Clubs eligibility requirements , after all the 175 other riders have taken the time to make sure there machines have been compliant. If nothing else as I stated in my opening post , exclusion from next years event would discourage riders from blatantly abusing the Eligibility Ruling in the future. I’m sure there were 5 other riders somewhere who would have valued and respected the Club by winning an entry to the event and having the privilege to enter, compete and comply , especially as this exceptional event is still one of the few oversubscribed left in the motorcycling world. Cubette Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old trials fanatic Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 Cubette firstly thanks for your reply however i get the impression that your involvement in motorsport or appreciation of a competitors point of view is not the same as most. Anybody who is serious about competing in ANY form of motorsport will first look at the rules and second examine way in which they can exploit any grey areas in those regulations to thier advantage that is what motorsport is about. OK 5 competitors got caught for what some people determined as "infringements" thats the way of thing and doesnt surprise me in the least. The problem is with this event the elegability rules are worded so loosely that if you wanted you could exclude most of the field or not as the "scrutineer" feels fit. Any elegability rules should be quantifyable and measureable and most importantly specific. Those in play at this event never have been so people will always push the limit especially when they see some bikes allowed through and others not because the areas are so grey. One person last year was even told "youve got too much ground clearence" how this was determined when there is no specified ground clearence limit is beyond me. As for the 5 riders "disrespecting" the club i seriously doubt anything could be further from the truth and i also doubt the thought ever crossed their mind. I have never "disrespected" any club or official but i have since the age of 13 been serious about my motorsport and have tried to always utilise the rules to my benefit the same as all serious competitors do. The Scottish "pre65" ? and 6 day are probably the premier events on the trials calender in this country but the "pre65" has always had issues regards elegability and until some workable, enforceable and more importantly enforced blindly across the entire entry rules are created this sorry situation will continue. I have a massive amount of respect if that is the correct word for the organisers and the work they put in to organise this event but i do not believe they are above reproach on certain issues. The five riders took their penalty fair enough. The event is always oversubscribed so is immensely popular no matter what. The chances of getting into a ballot of 80 odd riders considering the ammount of entries each year is pretty remote anyway so i hardly think any more "punishment" is necessary. Many riders i know personally will never submit another entry for many reasons some because of elegability issues. Does that matter? in the big picture no not really as the event will always be oversubscribed and the organising club can and do apply rules as they see fit. However the organisers are not deities after all. Just enjoy the event for what it is as long as they are able to run it but no need to penalise people any more that exclusion for the event. If you cant live with how the club see to run it dont enter simple as that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old trials fanatic Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 Hi Guy's, Hi OTF, Now I have taken a look at a vid of the Spanish boys and there infringments, Didn't make sence to me?? Think one had a Montesa front brake from the seventies fitted. Unlike most bikes with new hub brakes fitted from a friend of ours. Did he tell you how many he has sold now? Know I could not believe it either. Just ordered two for my "Faber Cub" for the trial. Hope the boy gets an entry, with the thousands I have spent on the NEW bike. Regards Charlie. Agreed Charlie find it hard to believe the guy was that stupid but they got caught fair enough. I hope the boy gets an entry too it's a great experience and one every serious British Bike, wont insult you with that stupid moniker pre65, rider should have on his CV. Good luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 (edited) Unfortunately in my opinion these “ 5 entrants “ seem to totally disrespect that the Club ,who have spent I’m sure the best part of the previous 12 months preparing this unique event for them to compete and yet cannot merely comply with the Clubs eligibility requirements , after all the 175 other riders have taken the time to make sure there machines have been compliant. If nothing else as I stated in my opening post , exclusion from next years event would discourage riders from blatantly abusing the Eligibility Ruling in the future. I’m sure there were 5 other riders somewhere who would have valued and respected the Club by winning an entry to the event and having the privilege to enter, compete and comply , especially as this exceptional event is still one of the few oversubscribed left in the motorcycling world. Cubette Cubette, I think you have a very simplistic view of machine 'eligibility'. Would you ban everyone who entered and rode on a Faber framed bike this year? Historically, Faber frames were never allowed because of their design, no frame tubes under the engine, but were accepted a couple of years ago with the MK3 version which did. This was the ruling for frames from 2011 Pre’65 design only. The rear subframe must resemble the original and be identifiable as such. The Faber met this criteria This an extract of frame eligibilty 2012 and 2013 Pre’65 design only. The rear subframe must resemble the original and be identifiable as such. Machines fitted with a bolt-on rear subframe must retain this feature. That second statement wasn't there in 2011. Does this mean that the Faber frames are now unacceptable again as the subframe is fixed not bolted? A bit unfair if so, when the MK3 was designed to be eligible with the club's agreement (I was told that by Howard as Jock wanted one for his C15 - he now has a Bantam) Anyone who built a bike using one will now find it not eligible, if the above is taken literally. So would you ban them for showing disrespect to the club? What about the picture of the Bantam below, now a very popular bike in Pre65? I'd be interested whether you think a bike like this should be ridden when considering the frame eligibility statement and its general appearance when compared to a 1964 design, particularly the engine - does it resemble the original? I've now removed the picture, see later post as to why What do you think, would you allow it in the trial? I would by the way, but I'm interested in your view. Edited October 26, 2012 by woody Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattylad Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 One difficulty is how you define "resemble", is this a silhouette i.e crankcases cylinder and head form, or does it refer to performance which must be similar to when it was new? By the introduction of the word you immediately embark on a fluid interpretation and invite owners to push th barriers as OTF mentioned. Looking at the photo above I would not allow the above bike as it most certainly does not resemble any Bantam I have ever seen coming from the BSA production lines, particularly in the subframe area. Without knowing exactly what else has been done to forks, engine etc I would suggest it is clearly aimed at improving performance way beyond what was avaliable at the time and as such does not resemble a period machine. My Cub is a totally standard machine (with the exception of an alloy fuel tank and TY 175 rear shocks) as I had one as my first ever bike back in the early '70's. It is no where near competitive against todays classics but I love it just the same! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.