Pre 65 Eligibility Ruling

[monty_jon]

hondars250 you make some good points, some people will always find something to moan and whinge about!

If the trial was so bad why do they need a ballot for 80+ riders, Surly nobody would enter?????

Why not congratulate the club for hosting a classic entry, and if you don’t like it you know what to do!

Edited November 2, 2012 by monty_jon

[hondars250]

hondars250 you make some good points, some people will always find something to moan and whinge about!

If the trial was so bad why do they need a ballot for 80+ riders, Surly nobody would enter?????

Why not congratulate the club for hosting a classic entry, and if you don’t like it you know what to do!

Hi monty-jon

Thanks and yes the club should be congratulated, I've even helped the year I did it and there's a hell of a lot of work goes into it and then the wingers get going, talk about being kicked when your down

[greeves]

It does not matter what's on your bench does it, because if you want to enter the Scottish PRE65 just do as I've already said look at what you've got/want to ride and if you answer yes to the questions, get it entered and best of luck to you and if you get in enjoy it for what it is, not what you want it to be.

And at last this is the one and only true. If you want something different; do it yourself.

[old trials fanatic]

And at last this is the one and only true. If you want something different; do it yourself.

Think you'll find Charlie did Javier.

[greeves]

Think you'll find Charlie did Javier.

I know Paul. The more good classic trials the better for us; classic trials riders. I am sure it must be a good trial, although I am also sure some people would like it and some not, but note that nobody opens a topic or even more than one in TC year after year to try and tell him how he must manage and regulate the trial he arranges.

I also put my time and money to help arrange some trials; and I know very well the great amount of work (sometimes money) you have to invest and how thankless the task can be sometimes.

So honestly, my respect and admiration to all that take the responsibility to organizing a great trial, and for me Scottish pre65 is number 1.

[hondars250]

Hola Sr Javier

Very well said, I think Mr Beswick has been on the Blue Nun again, you should really suggest a very nice Spanish wine, ho ho not long until Christmas!!!

[old trials fanatic]

I know Paul. The more good classic trials the better for us; classic trials riders. I am sure it must be a good trial, although I am also sure some people would like it and some not, but note that nobody opens a topic or even more than one in TC year after year to try and tell him how he must manage and regulate the trial he arranges.

I also put my time and money to help arrange some trials; and I know very well the great amount of work (sometimes money) you have to invest and how thankless the task can be sometimes.

So honestly, my respect and admiration to all that take the responsibility to organizing a great trial, and for me Scottish pre65 is number 1.

Totally agree with you Javier the scottish 2 day is the number 1 event for riders of British Bikes. My only reservations are towards the eligability criteria and namely how those criteria are applied. None of my comments have been reguarding any other aspect of the event. Not that a lot of people on here will believe me especially hondars250, or whatever his name really is, but i would just really have liked the organisers to have had a better published eligability critera. Now it appears that only myself, woody and charlie seem to think this is a problem. So be it. As the entry and ballot, for whatever number, is always oversubscribed it proves how popular the event is and how much so many riders want to add it to their CV. At least you have spent some little time with me and YOU hopefully know how passionate i feel about British Trials Bikes and "Classic" events. As for the rest believe what you want to believe axe grindings, blue nun, wind up merchant, idiot whatever.

Good luck with your and the rest of the Spanish riders entries i know those of you that get through will have a great time as i did when i rode.

Still think the eligability critera as published are not up to the very high standards of the rest of the event but there we will have to agree to dissagree.

Be interesting to see photos of the top riders bikes at the event and see how they comply with the criteria as applied to the rest of the field but thats the scottish and as most contributors never fail to say if you dont like it dont enter.

Oh yes i've never drunk blue nun and have no intention of starting now but should anyone care to discuss Classic trials over a pint of decent ale then i will be more than happy to buy them one back.

[davetom]

As a casual observer of this thread, I'd just like to put a word in for OTF, Charlie and Woody ( not that they need it ) but their points were well intentioned but seem to have been thrown back at them a little too readily.

The eligibility question in pre 65 is always a hot topic and yes you could just put knobblies on a D1 Bantam but not many really would just do that.Competitive riders want competitive bikes so its nice to know what's in or what's out and as a novice clubman like wot I am, if I were to build a replica bike of a top three Scottish finisher, would I get an entry ?

I noticed that Hondars250 has a Whitton frame, is that just because you like the chap and wanted to keep him busy, or to gain a little advantage over a standard pre 65 frame?

I only joined the wonderful world of pre65 a couple of years ago and the 3 chaps I mentioned were quick to offer support and knowledge as I built my bike, and I'm not the only one they've helped, they're hearts are in it so they deserve a little more respect in what is a DISCUSSION forum on pre 65.

[hondars250]

Hi davetom

Good comments, and yes Alan is a nice chap but I didn't buy the frame for that reason, like you I'm a novice rider but wanted to build the best bike I could within my budget, and I'm sure you would be able to enter if you decided to build a bike like one of the winners, when I rode, Steve Saunders won and I would not have liked to have riden his bike, I finished 59th on my James and I'm sure it would have been far worse than that riding on his bike, and I rode round with him on the 2nd day so seen it in action.

I agree this is a place for discussion on pre65 but not a place to slag off particular trials just because they don't fit into certain peoples beliefs of what pre65 is.

But joking aside with OTF if we look seriously at what is pre65 how far do we take it? So can OTF answer these questions, and lets for arguements sake leave engines and frames out for a moment, the questions are what was available in pre65.

1. IRC tyres

2. Renthal handle bars the modern ones we all use

3. Brake linings now used

4 Domino throttle

5. Domino levers

6. Gas Gas bash plates modified to fit

7. Honda kick starts

8. Beta gear levers

I could go on and on I don't know all the answers, but I doubt any of these are pre65.

What irritates me is why do certain people pick on one trial year after year and won't let it go?

This is like the arguement over originality, you could argue that a bike has lost it's originality when you change it's tyre or brakes?

Some engines have Kawasaki clutches fitted but because we cannot see them is it right?

I believe if a club has it's rules we should respect them and if we don't agree with them then don't ride with that club, but don't ridicule them year after year.

I don't slag Peak Classic off because I don't agree with the classes there trickshox, brit bike etc etc I go and enter the class I think I should be in and ride to enjoy it and what ever class I'm in I try to compete against everyone.

Hope that explains some of the banter which has gone on here

And for OTFs info my name is Paul Edwards and if he mentions me to Pete Carson, Pete will explain more.

Edited November 3, 2012 by hondars250

[woody]

ok, now the hysteria has died down, I'll have another go. Firstly though, I find it unacceptable that there is a view that this trial is above reproach. It's a public event and no matter how much time and effort go into it, people are entitled to an opinion. Far more time and effort go into organising F1 and Motogp - there is plenty of opinion on those that passes without objection.

I'll go back to the originator of this topic, Cubette, whose comments were the context of my original comment and not the trial itself.

Firstly, I find it disappointing that someone can indiscriminately come onto a forum and publicly call for fellow competitors (assuming he competes) to be banned from an event.

Secondly, he accuses them of disrespecting the clubs rules by "blatantly abusing the Eligibility Ruling".

Now, unless he is the person that excluded them or was at the event to see exactly why they were excluded, does he know the specifics of their infringements to make that statement. Given the vagaries of some of the criteria, did they know what they'd done? (Not saying they didn't, I don't know) He was asked to state what these infringements were and so far, nothing, so to call for riders who have possibly been caught unaware to be banned from an event without knowing the details is over zealous at best, spiteful at worst.

He went on to say "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".

This is what I take exception to as clearly, there are riders in that other 175 that DID NOT do that and the fact that their bikes were allowed to compete shows that 1) his statement is wrong and 2) the rules are not enforced consistently. They were accepted from the photographs with the entry and they were accepted through scrutineering at the trial when the frame and subframe DON'T resemble the Pre65 original design. There is no room for interpretation there either, they don't. People who then come on here stating the rules are clear and what's all the fuss about is what then fires the debate. It's not the rules themselves, it's people disputing that they are applied inconsistently. This is why it crops up year after year.

Hence my first response was to take his comment to task and say that he had a very simplistic view of the rules. The rules have anomalies so big you can drive trucks through the gaps and the interpretation of what "Pre65 design" means is subjective at best.

I've ridden classic events since the late 80s, have seen the evolution of the Pre65 bikes from that period on, been in Scotland on a good number of occasions and seen first hand the bikes that have competed. My comments are based upon that experience, from knowing and talking with riders over 3 decades at trials up and down the country.

Regardless of what you may think, there are a lot fed up with the interpretation of Pre65 rules and what is or isn't acceptable. Not everyone bothers to voice it on an internet forum. And few will go 'public' because they don't want to jeopordise their chances of getting an entry. Like it or not, that's how it is.

Today I had a very enjoyable day riding the Classic Experts. No scrutineering, no bikes that raised eyebrows, no checking whether Cubs had swan necks or not and most importantly, no complaints from any rider about another rider's bike. Just everyone enjoying riding their modified bikes and no-one giving a toss that the BSA over there has a Grimeca front hub in it or that the one over there has Montesa yokes on it.

[charlie prescott]

Hi Guys,

Thanks Dave,

NO need to add to that.

Regards Charlie.

[big john]

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

Edited November 4, 2012 by big john

[greeves]

Indeed Big John, if that at last is what the organizing committee wants their trial to be.

[old trials fanatic]

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

BJ it's an idea but i dont quite see how that would sort out the issue because the same anomalies are also evident in the pre unit classes. Reminds me of a trial i rode in earlier this yeasr when a rider on an Ariel cleaned a section with a big step in it. I commented to the rider next to me in the queue who happened to be riding a very original 78 Majesty "wow that was a great ride" the reply made me smile "well his bike is over 30 years newer than mine".

Indeed Big John, if that at last is what the organizing committee wants their trial to be.

Agreed Javier as you say it's their trial. But what would they call it? The Scottish Pre65 2 Day Trial for Pre Unit Bikes only.

[old trials fanatic]

Hi davetom

Good comments, and yes Alan is a nice chap but I didn't buy the frame for that reason, like you I'm a novice rider but wanted to build the best bike I could within my budget, and I'm sure you would be able to enter if you decided to build a bike like one of the winners, when I rode, Steve Saunders won and I would not have liked to have riden his bike, I finished 59th on my James and I'm sure it would have been far worse than that riding on his bike, and I rode round with him on the 2nd day so seen it in action.

I agree this is a place for discussion on pre65 but not a place to slag off particular trials just because they don't fit into certain peoples beliefs of what pre65 is.

But joking aside with OTF if we look seriously at what is pre65 how far do we take it? So can OTF answer these questions, and lets for arguements sake leave engines and frames out for a moment, the questions are what was available in pre65.

1. IRC tyres

2. Renthal handle bars the modern ones we all use

3. Brake linings now used

4 Domino throttle

5. Domino levers

6. Gas Gas bash plates modified to fit

7. Honda kick starts

8. Beta gear levers

I could go on and on I don't know all the answers, but I doubt any of these are pre65.

What irritates me is why do certain people pick on one trial year after year and won't let it go?

This is like the arguement over originality, you could argue that a bike has lost it's originality when you change it's tyre or brakes?

Some engines have Kawasaki clutches fitted but because we cannot see them is it right?

I believe if a club has it's rules we should respect them and if we don't agree with them then don't ride with that club, but don't ridicule them year after year.

I don't slag Peak Classic off because I don't agree with the classes there trickshox, brit bike etc etc I go and enter the class I think I should be in and ride to enjoy it and what ever class I'm in I try to compete against everyone.

Hope that explains some of the banter which has gone on here

And for OTFs info my name is Paul Edwards and if he mentions me to Pete Carson, Pete will explain more.

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.

Edited November 4, 2012 by old trials fanatic