woody Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 Charlie, don't get too carried away. See my earlier post that I asked the club last year about the MK3, after seeing the bolt up reference in the regs, and they said it was ok. The bolt up clause is still in there this year and they say they're tightening up on eligibility so who knows. Best thing to do is email Bill Emmerson and ask him as it seems to be him that is responsible for the rule book and as he seems to do most of the machine checking, or at least he did when I got my ticket, he should be able to give you an answer about the MK3 It could be that it is ok because there was a 1964 frame that wasn't bolt up or swan neck? The MK1 and MK2 Fabers weren't allowed because of the lack of frame tubes under the engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old trials fanatic Posted October 26, 2012 Report Share Posted October 26, 2012 (edited) Come on stop playing on words Identifiable and silhouette to me mean the same. They may to you but to most of the English speaking world they dont mean the same at all. Thats basic English. FYI the term silhouette in common parlance would refer to what is effectively a shadow or for instance a cut out.Therefore by definition if the eligability prerequisite was a silhouette formula as used in a lot of motorsports the Bantam in question that nobody seems able to offer an opinion on would be eligable. However the "Pre65" LOL Scottish is not and does NOT mention sillhouette only as you quote identifiable. Well seing as everybody on here would recognise the bike in question and call it a Bantam, nobody else has called it a Tiger Cub or an Ariel, again by definition it must have been identified as such and therefore is identifiable as a Bantam so in line with the published, as against the nudge nudge wink wink underground paddock mutterings, eligability regs should be eligable for the event in question. That encapsulates the problem with the pre65 scottish and incidentally the whole "Pre65" thing there is no rule book for people to build to. Edited October 26, 2012 by old trials fanatic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack_the_lad Posted October 26, 2012 Report Share Posted October 26, 2012 As I said before you need to speek to Jim and ask him what they said about his bantam design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big john Posted October 26, 2012 Report Share Posted October 26, 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.... As I usually do, I wait until the club do their ballot and see what happens. If I get a ride, then that's a result, if I don't - I'll marshall/observe, those have been my actions since 1993 when I parked the cars at the old school! Have a good un! Big John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danny b Posted October 26, 2012 Report Share Posted October 26, 2012 Well seing as everybody on here would recognise the bike in question and call it a Bantam, nobody else has called it a Tiger Cub or an Ariel, again by definition it must have been identified as such and therefore is identifiable as a Bantam so in line with the published, as against the nudge nudge wink wink underground paddock mutterings, eligability regs should be eligable for the event in question. you obviously have an axe to grind... the regs only specifically say that the subframe should be recognisable as the original.. obviously that is subjective but i am fairly sure most would agree that if the pictured bantam sub frame was lying under a auto jumble table, few would mistake it for an original bantam subframe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 As I said before you need to speek to Jim and ask him what they said about his bantam design. As I mentioned before, it isn't one of Jim's Bantams Both you and Cubette said you couldn't understand what the fuss was about regarding eligibility as you think it's crystal clear. Yet neither of you will give an opinion on a particular bike. If rules are so clear, what's the problem, it's only an opinion, you're not deciding for real. Maybe not so clear are they? Why did you have to modify your Cub shock mounts when the Bantam mounts don't reflect 1964 Bantam mounts? Point proven I think. I have no axe to grind. The people building these Bantams make really nice jobs of them, and the Cubs and whatever else. The smaller bikes like the Bantams and Cubs enable older and less fit riders to continue to compete on a nice light competitive bike. Not everyone over 60-odd has the fitness and strength anymore to handle bikes that weigh 230lbs plus. If they fall or get into trouble, they can't hold onto the bike and could get injured which is not what you want at that age. Lightweights like modernised Cubs and Bantams don't present that problem. They can continue riding when they may otherwise have had to give up. There is so much horse**** spooled out about pre65 eligibility generally it's a joke. Some people need to step back and ask themselves what exactly is it that they are trying to achieve with their rules? I wonder sometimes if anyone really knows...?? I've now removed the picture of the Bantam as I only put it up ti illustrate to Jack and Cubette that rule interpretation is hardly clear cut. I hope Jack, that now you have gone to the trouble of altering your Cub to suit the regs of one trial that you get through the ballot and get to ride it. Be a real pisser if you changed it to how they wanted and didn't get through - and I mean that sincerely, it's not sarcasm, as it's a very real scenario that some riders face each year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firedfromthecircus Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 I hope Jack, that now you have gone to the trouble of altering your Cub to suit the regs of one trial that you get through the ballot and get to ride it. Be a real pisser if you changed it to how they wanted and didn't get through - and I mean that sincerely, it's not sarcasm, as it's a very real scenario that some riders face each year. Which kind of backs up Cubettes original point, no? Five riders had components on their bikes that differed from the declared components on the entry form, and thus denied riders with eligible bikes from a ride. If they had declared the fitted components on the entry form they would not even have been in the ballot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 Which kind of backs up Cubettes original point, no? Five riders had components on their bikes that differed from the declared components on the entry form, and thus denied riders with eligible bikes from a ride. If they had declared the fitted components on the entry form they would not even have been in the ballot. What Cubette called for happens anyway because if you get pulled up for a component they deem ineligible, you won't get a future entry and that's their perogative, it's their trial. Saying people showed total disrespect to the club was slightly over the top. Riders will get away with whatever they can with any rules, some get away with it, some don't,including behaviour in sections. There is ambiguity in the criteria which is evident from one bike being allowed shock mounts that bear no resemblence to the original and another being asked to change them. Why can one bike run a bashplate with no frame tube under the engine which isn't original but another can't? There is ambiguity and more than 5 riders had bikes that didn't comply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie prescott Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 Hi Guys. Hi Dave, I am sending another email to Bill Emerson about the Faber Otter Cub. The last one I sent did not get a reply? Which is strange has it was only a question to clarifie ,what the constructor of the frame had told me on purchasing the item ,that this Mk3 Faber frame was cleared to be eligible for the Pre 65 Scottish event. I at the time of purchase was quite content to build a swan necked frame or even buy one of the super lightweight ones from Alan Whitton. But I as you know run the BSA Otter web site. So building a bike for my young rider to try and get an entry to this prestiges event was a no brainier was it it needed to be an Otter, So that the build and trial on the bike could be covered by the web site. For interest of the worldwide coverage the site has. We will see if I get a reply this time, or you could just mail me Bill on www.bsaotter.com Regards Charlie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 I don't know Charlie - the MK3 Faber for a BSA is ok because there was a 1964 BSA frame that didn't have a bolt on subframe or swan neck. I've not much knowledge on Cubs but given that a non swan neck frame was available in 1964 that you could have put a Cub engine into, then I would have thought there wouldn't be a problem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie prescott Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 Hi Guy's, Hi Dave. I agree, All the second generation C15T's were built in 1964 and then stock piled as Joe public did not fancy the wider and heavier bike than the original C15T. This is why they pushed the bikes for sale to the military, Pat will confirm this. This frame was all welded (I have one). Now has you know the later Cubs had the frame for the BSA Bantam, ( and I seem to remember Charlie Reynolds fitting a Cub engine into a D3 Bantam frame along time before that.) It seems to be the later D7 onwards frames that are being modified for this event, and the subframes based on these and not the D3, although these were later than 1965. I agree these had bolt on subframes has now will my Mk3 Faber "Otter" Cub. If I now name the bike a BSA/ Triumph Cub, I can't see that there should be objection to the bike ,would you? Regards Charlie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old trials fanatic Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 Hi Guy's, Hi Dave. I agree, All the second generation C15T's were built in 1964 and then stock piled as Joe public did not fancy the wider and heavier bike than the original C15T. This is why they pushed the bikes for sale to the military, Pat will confirm this. This frame was all welded (I have one). Now has you know the later Cubs had the frame for the BSA Bantam, ( and I seem to remember Charlie Reynolds fitting a Cub engine into a D3 Bantam frame along time before that.) It seems to be the later D7 onwards frames that are being modified for this event, and the subframes based on these and not the D3, although these were later than 1965. I agree these had bolt on subframes has now will my Mk3 Faber "Otter" Cub. If I now name the bike a BSA/ Triumph Cub, I can't see that there should be objection to the bike ,would you? Regards Charlie. No objection? Dream on charlie. Sincerely though i hope your bike whichever one you choose to submit gets an entry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamdodds Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 Hello folks, what is worse, 2013 slab yolks or a 1966 Bulto front brake plate ? Tam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamdodds Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 Hello, remember folks, those riders put out the trial,last year, were put out for telling lies Tam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie prescott Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 Hi Guy's. Hi Tam. The problem is that there is no guidence to enyone that wants to build a bike to conform. Just general outline. When you start looking at some of the bikes (Winning mostly,) you think to your self, If I fit one like that on my bike will it be exeptable? as I am only Joe Blogs, and not a Star name! Then you look at other components and can see that they were not Pre 65, it is this term, more than what is exepted , that is the problem to most people. Regards Charlie. 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.