Pre 65 Eligibility Ruling

[woody]

Problem can be solved!

A very good friend of mine (and very well connected to the Six Days and Pre-65 Scottish) made a really good suggestion a couple of years back in my company...

"Change the Pre-65 Scottish Two Day over to a total Pre-Unit only Trial".

That would sort all the trouble out!

Big John

I don't know John, do you really think it would? Surely the same problems would exist around interpretation - also, isn't a Villiers pre-unit, or does it just mean 4-stroke pre-units.

Anyway, a bit drastic and unecessary in my view...

As a serious point of discussion, I wonder just what the various clubs really seek to achieve, or think they are achieving, with the eligibility rules. It's long been accepted that the bikes are modified and in reality, there is no such thing as a cheat bike any more. Back in the early days of the Sebac and Miller rounds, or even the Scottish Pre65, a few riders were having their bikes modified 'under the skin' to improve performance and at that time it was all hush hush, nothing was admitted. Lots of secrecy and lots of gossip as to who had done what. It was cheating as it was undeclared and gave a distinct performance advantage over those on standard bikes. I remember seeing the Pre65 class bikes turn from unwieldy lumps of iron that bounced through sections like kangaroos on steroids, into lightweight, beautifully crafted machines that now out perform most twinshocks. Isn't it ironic that the Pre65 cut-off was to exclude the early Bultaco which is now hopelessly out-performed by the very bikes (modern variants of course) whose extinction it caused.......? Yet it's too modern to compete against them...

As the years rolled on it just became accepted that bikes were going to be modified and the 'silhouette' rule was applied. As long as the bike looked 'period', internal mods were accepted. But this is where it all got subjective as to what exactly is 'period'.

You now have the situation whereby any component can be reproduced as long as it is of Pre65 design. But, even if all the parts meet that criteria, the sum of those parts, the complete bike, looks nothing like the 60s original, therefore it's not as though you have 60s looking bikes ascending pipeline in front of scores of appreciative spectators. So why the obsession with components when the bike itself looks more modern than the last twinshocks? Do those spectators really care about that? Do they care if that bike has a Grimeca wheel, or that bike has Montesa or Ossa yokes, or that Cub doesn't have a swan neck frame? Does it really matter if the shock mounts on that BSA differ from original, or that the shocks have been repositioned, or that the rear mudguard loop has been cut-off? Do they look, do they even notice? Would it really detract from the spectacle?

So, you have to ask, is there any point to it? To my mind, the development has gone about as far as it can go on non-rigid bikes. What more can be done? Would it be more pragmatic to just say, no hydraulic brakes and clutches, no disc brakes, no reed valves on two strokes, but allow the use of old components from twinshocks or post 65 British bikes such as Spanish or Jap hubs or wheels, Triumph 4 bolt forks. Allow Spanish or Jap forks with the spindle directly under the fork, allow Spanish or Jap yokes.

Would this really detract from the spectacle, would it have any sort of detrimental appearance on the bikes themselves, bearing in mind they look nothing like original even when they meet current rules? If you're honest about it, you'd have to say no it wouldn't. It doesn't in other events where no scrutineering takes place and no-one complains about components.

So, are clubs just trying to implement rules for the sake of it, out of habit and because they feel that it is what should be done? Is that working? I'd have to say yes and no to those two questions. Maybe it's time to sit back and take a pragmatic view and think about what the objective of the regulations are and whether they achieve that objective. Maybe it's time to relax the rules a little and accept parts that are not accepted at the moment.

Look at the following comparisons:

A Gremica hub with fins removed looks like a Rickman. Therefore it meets 'Pre65 design' appearance but isn't allowed. You'd be pushed to tell them apart on a bike.

Montesa yokes resemble the allowed billet yokes. Montesa aren't allowed.

Ossa fork legs resemble Norton or AJS/Matchless. Ossa not allowed

Bultaco front hub with fins removed resembles a Rickman. Bultaco not allowed

Bultaco rear hub with fins removed is similar to modern billet hub. Bultaco not allowed.

Personally, I see no sense in the above. Is it just me that has that view or is there sense in it?

[metisse]

Yer, and if its all about looking like it did back in the day..... Should nt all the riders wear BARBOUR JACKETS AND TROUSERS..or a footing coat.... perhaps that should be in the regs .......A photo submitted with you in your riding gear next to the bike you intend to ride....

Its just a thought..... might trim the entries a tad......The price of Barbour jackets on ebay ........

[hondars250]

Wasnt going to bother answering but thought i had better before another round of character assasination atempts so. Agreed none of the items mentioned were available before December 31st 1964 but does it matter? Some of the parts, take domino levers or any other similar pattern levers, are just sensible mods as if you snap an Amal perch then they are a bugger to replace and saves time out on the moors not really a performance advantage. Bit like using Sherco mudguard braces although they do improve the fork action .

To answer the accusations that people pick on this one trial a year and not others was answered in part by Woody in his post above. I dont feel i'm "picking on" anybody BTW. I doubt that the 5 riders mentioned deliberately tried to contraviene the eligability criteria it's more than probable that like a lot of people they dont really understand what the eligability critera are. They like most of us just looked at photos of previous competitiors in this trial and built a bike similar, in their eyes, to what they saw. OK if you are daft enough to fit a Bultaco front brake youre asking for it but is that different to people riding unchallenged in previous years using Grimica hubs with the little ribs machined off to disguise them and resemble Rickman ones? they werent excluded or banned. Then again i cant find any mention of a ban for future years for an eligability infringement. You cant just apply retroactively rules as you see fit can you???

OK why does the Scottish 2 day always inspire such passionate discourse especially about the subject of eligability? Well because most people realise that unless you build a "pre65", god i hate that term, bike to be eligable for the event is value is severely deminished and becomes almost unsellable. That shouldnt be an issue because unbelieveably there are 51 other weekends of the year that you can ride a British Bike that is NOT Scottish eligable but thats the way it is. You see because the two main governing bodies refuse to grasp the nettle and publish a comprehensive set of construction rules that we could all work to everbody applies their own interpretation to the eligability rules as published which we all know are not the same version that is applied in practice.

The only other club i know of personally that has grasped the nettle and tried their level best to publish a workable set of eligability critera is Yorkshie Classic and they are very successful. I dont understand some of them but that is not important. Their rules were voted for by their members and they have a "specials" class for all bike that do not comply and they dont seem to get any problems.

I am not saying their rules are better than any others but i am saying theirs are more comprehensive and make a damn sight more sense than the published ones for the Scottish 2 day.

If the ACU and AMCA finally came up with a set of rules would it change anything re the Scottish 2 day situation? doubt it as the are not members but are governed by the SACU and what with devolution on the horizon then their trial will be governed by whatever criteria they choose to adopt. Thats fine by me but this debate will always rear it's ugly head until a proper, comprehensive and more importantly workable set of rules are published for anybody hoping for an entry to see and build a bike to conform to.

Heres a thought? If GOV 132 entered this year i am pretty sure the organisers would be delighted and give the bike an entry however would that be in line with the published eligability criteria? especially when so many bikes have been excluded for "modifications" deemed unaceptable. Just a thought anyway probably would be uncompetitive against some of the 2012 Ariels

Incidentally a period of stability instead of altering and tinkering behind the scenes each year wouldnt help.

Finally before my merry band of detractors say that i only criticise and never offer anything like a workable option hers mine.

1. A minimum weight limit measured at scrutineering before accessing the ramp. Subject to class variations.

2. A maximum ground clearence limit measured by putting the bike on a box of specified height when both wheels must just touch the floor at the same time with front and rear suspension fully extended. Subject to class variations.

3. A minimum wheelbase length. Subject to class variations.

4. A maximum front fork leg and rear suspension unit length measured at the same time as the ground clearence limit.

Any bike NOT complying to this and or other criteria should be in a "Specials" class as Yorkshire Classic do and most successful it is too. Incidentally i am not a member of Yorkshire Classic it's just that they are a very influential club in my area and do publish openly their eligability criteria.

Well it seems to me you have double standards, and blowing hot and cold??

So what your saying is that 2 riders, same ability are on the same marks dropped and one of them has domino and the other amal levers and they both fall off and damage there levers, and the amal rider gets more marks for being late than the domino rider, and that's fair. I know it's a bit of an exreme example but it could happen, do you think Mr amal levers would be happy chap (no)

So as a few of you have said it's just about the 5 riders excluded, so is it just speculation again on why they were excluded, lets have some facts about the reasons behind why they were excluded then it might be worth a discussion? but to guess and make things up surely thats wrong. We might even find out one of them turned with a gas gas front end !!!! but I doubt it, lets just wait and get facts not fiction.

And yes Yorkshire classic have got it right, I'm a member of that club and it's great to ride with them, if you think they are so good, you should have taken a leaf out their book 2 routes then classes to match easy for everyone.

[old trials fanatic]

Well it seems to me you have double standards, and blowing hot and cold??

So what your saying is that 2 riders, same ability are on the same marks dropped and one of them has domino and the other amal levers and they both fall off and damage there levers, and the amal rider gets more marks for being late than the domino rider, and that's fair. I know it's a bit of an exreme example but it could happen, do you think Mr amal levers would be happy chap (no)

So as a few of you have said it's just about the 5 riders excluded, so is it just speculation again on why they were excluded, lets have some facts about the reasons behind why they were excluded then it might be worth a discussion? but to guess and make things up surely thats wrong. We might even find out one of them turned with a gas gas front end !!!! but I doubt it, lets just wait and get facts not fiction.

And yes Yorkshire classic have got it right, I'm a member of that club and it's great to ride with them, if you think they are so good, you should have taken a leaf out their book 2 routes then classes to match easy for everyone.

Anybody could fit Domino, Venhill or Amal levers it's personal choice my personal choice is to fit Domino ones for the reason i pointed out. to the best of my knowledge fitting Domino or any other make of lever would not make your bike ineligable for this or any other event as long as the levers are ball ended. You really are determined to have a go at every oportunity i must have really wronged you at some point.

As for Yorkshire Classic i only used them as an illustration as they like the scottish ONLY cater for "p65".

Then again you bring my club into it. They use two routes we run three the scottish run one. The routes my club runs is my choice if riders dont like it they can choose to ride elsewhere. What has this to do with the thread in question apart from your desire to have yet another personal attack at me? Bugger all actually so lets try to keep it on topic and not just turn it into an opportunity for you to drag peak classic into a discussion on 5 riders being excluded from the scottish.

[charlie prescott]

Hi Guy’s.

All that is really needed to make the bike regulations a bit clearer is to set out a few more guidelines. For instance we all know that most of the hubs now fitted to most of the bikes that have had a lavish fund afforded to them, will have either new billet or cast hubs mainly to the old BSA/Triumph, Bantam /Cub design. But how close do you look; the back plates always have strengthening ribs on cast alloy backplates, unlike the original steel items.

The front fork issue is now taking a further turn, in that copy billet sliders are now being manufactured, where as before there was a lot of work carried out to fit a turned down Spanish or Japanese slider to fit snugly into a BSA AMC or Norton slider.

Now we have not, had conformation that these copy forks are allowed in the trial or not, have we.

Then there is the issue of BSA/Triumph square barrels. Are the ones fitted to the Tiger Cub Engine allowed in the rules, as these should really be of the oval variety, shouldn’t they.

Then are a BSA/Triumph B25/ Tr25 barrel allowed if it is turned down to make it round? And is, it OK to use that then, without a pushrod tunnel.

Now frames, the majority of the fund lavished bikes are copies of a Pre 65 design? But are they? Frames that had bolt on subframes should still have these, but should the then subframe look exactly like the bike that came out of the factory at that time, or could it be chopped and clipped like most are now? No real guidance on this mater, (my 1961 BSA C15T from Comerfords in 1962, had a cut down subframe).

Then the issue of the angle of the steering head, should this be a long angle like all bikes were at the time? Or should the steep angles now adopted be allowed? We know that any bike (well most, Now) that enter this trial are not Pre 1965 machines. Even most of the engine castings are later than that date, and a lot of these are new.

So the stupid situation is that bikes that are used in other great Classic trials are not eligible to enter this one event. For the simple reason that, they were probably built to a lower budget than most of the bikes built especially for the Scottish trial.

If you have been to the IOM and seen the bikes competing in that trial, you will know what I mean. I know I am bois but just take a look at the bikes I snapped at this years event, from Spain and other countries, OK I know that they are of the “Otter” design, but don’t you think that these bikes look a lot more “British” than most of the bikes that compete in the Scottish trial? The Bling is not as evident for a start. And as has been said, does anyone care that a Grimeca front and back hub turns up on a few bikes and a lot blatantly use four stud British forks, without any disguise.

I could keep on but it is now getting boring.

Regards Charlie.

[cubette]

Its been very reassuring to see that the overwhelming opinion from the mass' is that of my own personal views.

In essence unforunately 5 competitors broke a ruling with their entry declaration as per the regulations.

Without going into the past 7 pages of peoples posts, facts are facts , rules were broken,the Club acted as per the regulations and excluded 5 riders, if these riders didn't / don't want to comply with the Clubs regulations maybe then they could compete in any of the other classic events that take place thoughout the country & free up 5 valued entries that would be appreciated by other people .

It would seem a very supportive move for the officials to reject the 5 competitors entries for the 2013 event.

I'm sure if any of the "5" want to be part of the atmosphere of this fantastic event maybe there may be a section or two that they could observe for the Club.

Cubette.

[monty_jon]

Hi Guy’s.

All that is really needed to make the bike regulations a bit clearer is to set out a few more guidelines. For instance we all know that most of the hubs now fitted to most of the bikes that have had a lavish fund afforded to them, will have either new billet or cast hubs mainly to the old BSA/Triumph, Bantam /Cub design. But how close do you look; the back plates always have strengthening ribs on cast alloy backplates, unlike the original steel items.

The front fork issue is now taking a further turn, in that copy billet sliders are now being manufactured, where as before there was a lot of work carried out to fit a turned down Spanish or Japanese slider to fit snugly into a BSA AMC or Norton slider.

Now we have not, had conformation that these copy forks are allowed in the trial or not, have we.

Then there is the issue of BSA/Triumph square barrels. Are the ones fitted to the Tiger Cub Engine allowed in the rules, as these should really be of the oval variety, shouldn’t they.

Then are a BSA/Triumph B25/ Tr25 barrel allowed if it is turned down to make it round? And is, it OK to use that then, without a pushrod tunnel.

Now frames, the majority of the fund lavished bikes are copies of a Pre 65 design? But are they? Frames that had bolt on subframes should still have these, but should the then subframe look exactly like the bike that came out of the factory at that time, or could it be chopped and clipped like most are now? No real guidance on this mater, (my 1961 BSA C15T from Comerfords in 1962, had a cut down subframe).

Then the issue of the angle of the steering head, should this be a long angle like all bikes were at the time? Or should the steep angles now adopted be allowed? We know that any bike (well most, Now) that enter this trial are not Pre 1965 machines. Even most of the engine castings are later than that date, and a lot of these are new.

So the stupid situation is that bikes that are used in other great Classic trials are not eligible to enter this one event. For the simple reason that, they were probably built to a lower budget than most of the bikes built especially for the Scottish trial.

If you have been to the IOM and seen the bikes competing in that trial, you will know what I mean. I know I am bois but just take a look at the bikes I snapped at this years event, from Spain and other countries, OK I know that they are of the “Otter” design, but don’t you think that these bikes look a lot more “British” than most of the bikes that compete in the Scottish trial? The Bling is not as evident for a start. And as has been said, does anyone care that a Grimeca front and back hub turns up on a few bikes and a lot blatantly use four stud British forks, without any disguise.

I could keep on but it is now getting boring.

Regards Charlie.

Perhaps you have forgot it’s only meant to be a bit of fun!

Chill out a little, just ride and have some fun