Bantam Forks For Scottish Pre65

[trialsrfun]

John Taylor from Stafford rode what was I think a self built Bantam with good success quite a while after the Spanish bikes were winning most everything.

[woody]

I remember seeing Norman Hanks on his Bantam on occassions at our local sand/gravel quarry (actually quite near to the centre of Brum) back in the early seventies. I don't know when he would have first built it (I'm assuming he'd built it himself) so don't know if it was a late 60s build or not. Nice looking bike as I remember finished in chrome and alloy, and went pretty well too.

Happy days in that quarry as a kid, first watching Arthur Browning practising on his Homerlite Bultaco, then later Dave Smith and Steve Wilson joining him before getting bikes ourselves. It spawned 2 or 3 generations of off-road riders, that old quarry.

I imagine Norman's Bantam is still tucked away at the back of the Hanks workshop somewhere.

[suzuki250]

Hi,

And for a little spice to the discussion, other people had their own ideas about how to make a Bantam trials model - the motors were nice and cheap and virtually bomb-proof, so why not.

One of those variants, which I believe was created by Mick Whitlock - but maybe someone can confirm that, was ridden by Doug Theobald, and here's a picture for you to enjoy.

that's a very nice bike, the frame is Similar to the Suzuki Beamish

[laird387]

Hi,

Just to add a few historical details to the thoughts - how about looking at what a very capable rider was using on the second day of the 'Exmoor Three Day' - an excellent pre-65 trial which many of us enjoyed riding in.

The image is Bill Price and he is taking his Bantam through the section at Shallowford.

Bear in mind that not long after this photograph was taken Bill brought out his little rigid DMW and used that very successfully in the early trials of the 'Sammy Miller' series.

Enjoy.

[monty_jon]

Looks like they used fiddle bikes then as well, D14 / B175 with centre fire Head?

Not really pre65, nice bike though

[laird387]

Hi Woody,

I'm sorry - but I have to comment on your statement above:

"And after all, these ridiculous eligibility rules were originally brought in to keep the machines looking 'period'. 100% success in that respect then..."

Since I was the first man ever to write ANY eligibility rules for ANY pre-65 event, I certainly know what was written - moreover I know precisely WHY it was written the way that it was - and it had nothing whatsoever to do with keeping any machines looking 'period'.

Like many other trials riders at the time I was a young man with a young family - and a lot of expense. I had my old British bike, not a new one, but it ran well and I could ride it in trials.

Then the first of the Spanish models arrived, they were all newly developed specifically for trials use - not just converted from road machine bits like the British had been. I couldn't have afforded a new British lightweight let alone a new Spanish model.

Then organisers began to tighten up the severity of the sections to take marks off the new Spanish lightweights - soon they were so tight you couldn't even push an old British bike around the turns - let alone ride them - and don't forget the rule then was 'front wheel stops' = five marks lost.

A group of three of us John Smith, myself and Derek Lord decided, one Saturday afternoon that our choice was sell our bikes, which were now unrideable, and take up golf, chess, mountain climbing - or whatever - or do something far less expensive and that we knew how to do.

That was to keep our old British bikes and create a separate trial just like they had been about a year before- with turns we could get round, etc.

That's what we did, on the ground behind the Red Lion at Shawforth we laid out a six mile lap with twenty old style sections, we called it the 'Bigger Banger' trial and limited the entry to British machines with separate classes for springers and rigids, but all riding the same route.

We got fifty-two entries and it was won by Arthur Lampkin who left his modern bike at home and brought one of his Gold Stars.

Later in the year, writing in my column for T+MXNews I coined the word 'pre-65' as a simple means of describing the new type of trials - which were springing up all around the country when people with similar financial problems to ours wanted a means to keep on riding the bikes they already had.

When some people started bending the rules to 'improve' their old British bikes we introduced the eligibility rule that any component could be fitted if it was on general sale and available to the public at the time the machine they were modifying was made. So you could fit Norton forks to a BSA, etc. - which many had done originally anyway.

The system worked just as long as there were no cheap second hand Spanish bikes coming on the market, then it began to go wrong.

So there you have it - those are the facts - now make up your mind..........

Edited January 19, 2014 by laird387

[charlie prescott]

Hi Guy's.

Deryk,

You are totally right with what you say, But I cant find the comments from Dave, sorry "Woody" above that you have, had to make your reply to.

I think you will find that Dave ,Sorry "Woody" thinks along similar lines as we do. Or am I missing something ???

Regards Charlie. www.bsaotter.com

[laird387]

Hi Charlie,

Nor can I maybe it's been wiped?

and monty_don,

You are obviously correct, it's not pre-65 - but then again when it was being ridden in the photograph we had a separate class for 'unit-construction' which was for machines that were 'pre-70'.

The original classes were for 'rigids', 'pre-65', 'unit-construction', 'sidecars' and 'specials'. In order to 'engage' the younger club members to join in, we created another class for 'trail bikes' in the British Bike Championship - which was especially well supported in such events as the 'Tour of Islwyn'.

We then, in the Islwyn club - agreed to take over a 'Riding for the Disabled' day when the local pony club let the disabled kids down at the last minute where we took disabled kids around some specially prepared tracks, with the aid of the local Forestry Commission (now Forest Enterprise) and club members put on a free barbecue for the kids and their parents - and that event is still an annual feature - supported by club members with current trail bikes.

It was all great fun - and worthwhile.

[old trials fanatic]

Just a question. Why are villiers motors classed as unit construction when because the gearbox is clearly bolted on they aren't ? Never understood that one. So where did villiers engined bike's stand in your rules Deryk? It's obvious a Bantams unit and a C15 etc but a villiers should be pre unit surely?

[laird387]

Hi OTF,

Sorry, but you could, if you were so inclined (or of a masochistic nature - take your choice) take a Villiers apart and use the motor and the gearbox quite separately, yes they were bolted together - but yes they were pre-unit!

It was a confusing issue, and in the end it was those funny people at Redditch - and one of my good friends Fearless Fred Fletcher on his 500 'Crusader' that decided the issue because the Bullet motor is very similar construction to the Villiers, and putting all the Bullets in the unit construction class was considered to be 'extracting the Michael'.......

But you see there wasn't all the commercialism involved in those days - so we didn't have to take life too seriously - we were there to enjoy ourselves away from the day job.

Enjoy.

[woody]

Derek - my comment is still there, it's on page 1 of this topic. But it needs to be taken in the context it was written, and that was in reference to a comment from 340Villiers and people 'breaching' current rules, which have been in their current format for, at a guess, about 10 years or so. Not whatever rules you wrote back in '79 for your trials.

Current eligibility rules allow the use of modern components as long as they are either hidden inside period components or machined to resemble the originals. They rule out the use of '70s / 80s twinshock parts such as wheels or yokes, because they aren't Pre65. Neither are newly machined parts Pre65 but the reasoning is they resemble the originals, so they are allowed, the concept being that they keep the machine within the spirit of Pre65 and resembling the original: ie: the silhouette . Except that they don't as a current Bantam, Cub, Ariel etc bears no resemblance at all to a 1964 bike. Bantams can use 4 speed motors when they differ visually from 3 speed. One club allows Cubs to use Dellorto carbs but nothing else can.

So as far as I can see, the rules do not achieve what they are supposed to achieve, which is keeping the machines looking period. They're nothing like, hence my comment that you picked up on.

It's a fairly straighforward view and one that is hard to dispute and I raise it because I get sick of people calling others 'cheats' for having 'non-elligible' parts. My own BSA has a Faber MK3 frame, it has Alan Whitton Yokes, Ossa forks, a Grimeca front hub and a Sherpa rear hub. The Ossa fork legs look the same as any other alloy fork legs that are allowed, but they aren't. The front hub looks like a Greeves or Rickman conical hub, but it's not allowed. I guarantee not many people would recognise what the rear hub is and it looks very similar to a modern billet hub. All 'silhouette' as they say - not that I built it to try and comply with anyone's rules, it's from parts I had lying in the shed, but silhouette nontheless. However, it's a 'fiddle' or 'cheat' bike according to some. The fact is it is far less 'fiddle' or effective in competition than many elligible machines.

So yes, with those facts, I stand by my view that eligibility rules are flawed, cost people a lot of money and do not achieve the one thing they were supposed to - keeping a machine looking period. In the case of Scotland, it can cost a lot of money for no purpose, building a competitive bike that complies but never getting an entry.

I still can't see what the issue is with modified machines, and modified is modified regardless of whether the parts used are deemed acceptable or not.

If people want trials for standard machines just run them... !!??

[big_red_bike]

Spot on Woody,i built my "pre 65" bike using the same kind of parts as yours .If only more people would do the same instead of getting hooked up on the idea of having to use mega expensive aftermarket parts because it is the "thing to do". Just build a bike and ride it in what class and where you can.

[340villiers]

Hi. I have added a picture from the 1962 Icosta Moto Cross clearly showing the use of Ceriani forks and yokes fitted to Lito's and Gold Star's. Ceriani have been producing Telescopic fork's from the mid 50's, they produced the alloy bottom's from the early 60's

REH forks then started producing there forks and yokes after Ceriani. The Metal Profile forks came slightly later all these forks where in production and for sale to the general public before 1965.

All these Tele fork's can be made to work well, give them a "Birthday Present" fit some new springs and some good quality oil and away you go. The Ceriani's can be expensive, REH and MP's can be picked up cheaper, so for say a couple of hundred pounds you have a (rockin pair of forks) and eligible, to upgrade further you can fit Marzocchi's into AJS / Norton / BSA bottoms etc.

What i cannot under stand is the fact that people think that they must fit New Modern Billet Bling parts. I am not knocking anyone producing such parts, these parts are beautifully made (YES)are they necessary (NO)!!!

So building up your Faber B40/C15, Greeves or Bantam with all that Twinshock parts you have stashed under the bench, these could be sold for a small fortune, With the cash you buy Metal Profile front end and a pair of std Cub Hub's, build up some wheels and away you go. You can now ride that bike anywhere, at any trial, all year round!!! You will also have some spare cash so that you can buy all your buddies a beer down at the pub, you then tell them the Great News that you got a ride in the 2015 PRE65 SCOTTISH.

Willie

Edited January 21, 2014 by 340villiers

[woody]

Willie, I agree with what you say in principle, but Yorkshire Classic don't allow those forks into Pre65, only Pre70. As far as I know, the Pre65 Scottish won't accept them either, but their criteria for forks is subjective and vague at best. So someone, at sometime, made the decision not to accept them as Pre65. Difficult to change this view now I think.

Now my point is, that if those forks were definitely available to the public before 1965, and the whole Pre65 ethos for eligibility is around maintaining period appearance of components (but fails in actual fact) what's wrong with a pair of Ossa or Yamaha forks which aren't leading axle and have the same appearance as the aforementioned. Or Montesa yokes that are virtually identical to modern billet.

This is where I think the criteria achieves nothing and contradicts itself.

[big_red_bike]

Hi unless rules have changed you are not allowed to use reh,mp,ceriani parts at some trials. also it costs a lot more to build up a cub wheel than use a standard twinshock wheel. A set of moddified forks are also a lot more than forks you can pick up at the brakers for next to nothing and when fitted look no more modern than the trick stuff.