old trials fanatic Posted January 2, 2014 Report Share Posted January 2, 2014 As for the yokes Std cast iron Bsa, Triumph, Alloy Ceriani, REH, and MP's can all be used, Billets yokes are acceptable from the aftermarket suppliers, the pinch bolts must also be on inside, this rules out the use of more modern Bultaco, Yamaha, Suzuki, Fantic, Ossa etc. Willie Now just let me try and get my head around this statement. So it's ok to use a billet yoke made in 2014 that resembles nothing in use prior to December 31st 1964 but NOT ok to use the more "modern" yokes made in the early 1970's or even before the 1970's ???????? sorry but I'm struggling I really am with the concept. Must be a Scottish mindset. At the end of the day at least we all get a good laugh out of the twists and turns of the organisers trying to justify their twisted logic and selective myopia re certain bikes when ridden by certain people. Is it this daft with ALL Scottish clubs at their trials? If so no wonder they are struggling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b40rt Posted January 2, 2014 Report Share Posted January 2, 2014 They introduced their own interpretation of eligibility rules based totally on their misunderstanding of what was happening elsewhere - and it's just being getting worse ever since. Or, what's happening "elsewhere" is not relevant ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b40rt Posted January 2, 2014 Report Share Posted January 2, 2014 (edited) Now just let me try and get my head around this statement. So it's ok to use a billet yoke made in 2014 that resembles nothing in use prior to December 31st 1964 but NOT ok to use the more "modern" yokes made in the early 1970's or even before the 1970's ???????? sorry but I'm struggling I really am with the concept. Must be a Scottish mindset. At the end of the day at least we all get a good laugh out of the twists and turns of the organisers trying to justify their twisted logic and selective myopia re certain bikes when ridden by certain people. Is it this daft with ALL Scottish clubs at their trials? If so no wonder they are struggling. OTF, name and shame the "certain" people, or drop it. Edited January 2, 2014 by b40rt 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie prescott Posted January 3, 2014 Report Share Posted January 3, 2014 Hi Guys. Question???? Has anyone got a sense of humour in Scotland ?????? And do they take any notice of anyone else's rules.????? Bantam forks on a Pre 1965 motorcycle , running in a motorcycle observation trial that is for Pre 1965 motorcycles should be at the best forks from a C15 BSA or a Triumph Mountain Cub, and should only have a three speed gearbox. And still look like a BSA Bantam from a side wards looking view, am I right????? Did the bard take liberties with the Scottish play????? Regards Charlie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old trials fanatic Posted January 3, 2014 Report Share Posted January 3, 2014 Hi Guys. Question???? Has anyone got a sense of humour in Scotland ?????? And do they take any notice of anyone else's rules.????? Bantam forks on a Pre 1965 motorcycle , running in a motorcycle observation trial that is for Pre 1965 motorcycles should be at the best forks from a C15 BSA or a Triumph Mountain Cub, and should only have a three speed gearbox. And still look like a BSA Bantam from a side wards looking view, am I right????? Did the bard take liberties with the Scottish play????? Regards Charlie. no,no,yes,no and I seriously doubt the bantams this year will comply with number 3 ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b40rt Posted January 3, 2014 Report Share Posted January 3, 2014 One personal example - it was noticeable to me when I was publishing ORR that there were very few subscribers based in Scotland - yet there was a constant stream of comments and queries from a very interested bunch of riders. Eventually quiet delving gained me the admission that there was a group with a single subscription copy of the magazine which was then shared round the group with a sort of token scheme rather like a lending library. Of course, it should have been obvious - the word 'canny' is, after all, of scottish derivation........ One of the reasons I don't subscribe to many magazines is the lack of local interest. Apart from pre 65 and ssdt there in no coverage. The exception this year was the Highland 2 day, which was excellent. Look through all the photos you have very kindly posted and this makes my point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b40rt Posted January 3, 2014 Report Share Posted January 3, 2014 Not a "criticism", just an observation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie prescott Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 Hi Guy's. Coincidence again!!!!! I have just this afternoon started to strip down for a rebuild the BSA C15T that Brian built that was featured, on the front cover of a late ORR magazine, The blue framed bike, story on my web site. The boys in the IOM have had it for a couple of years and have now swapped it for the Mk2 BSA C15 Otter of mine for a while. I was watching the James May Meccano Bike story from the IOM,and if you look there were two BSA Otters in the clock workshop ,I am told that the Blue tanked bike is ridden by the owner of the workshop, and the other looks in mid build. Story on BSA Otter web site. later. Funny old thing life. Regards Charlie. www.bsaotter.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trialsrfun Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suzuki250 Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monty_jon Posted January 19, 2014 Report Share Posted January 19, 2014 Looks like they used fiddle bikes then as well, D14 / B175 with centre fire Head? Not really pre65, nice bike though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie prescott Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old trials fanatic Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 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... !!?? 2 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.