big_red_bike Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
340villiers Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 (edited) 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 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 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. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big_red_bike Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 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. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl ekblom Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 MC-nytt (MC-news) trials project bike 1964. Ceriani front fork. They were not uncommon on off road bikes in those days. Modified Husqvarna engine .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
340villiers Posted January 28, 2014 Report Share Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) Hi Woody. The Pre 65 Scottish has always allowed the use of Ceriani, REH,and MP fork,s and yokes. Its interesting to note that you may also be getting it wrong South of the Border!!! Retaining that period look YES. The use of Yamaha, Ossa, Bultaco parts etc NO. The rule book say NO, Its that Simple. Willie Edited January 28, 2014 by 340villiers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old trials fanatic Posted January 28, 2014 Report Share Posted January 28, 2014 Hi Woody. The Pre 65 Scottish has always allowed the use of Ceriani, REH,and MP fork,s and yokes. Its interesting to note that you may also be getting it wrong South of the Border!!! Retaining that period look YES. The use of Yamaha, Ossa, Bultaco parts etc NO. The rule book say NO, Its that Simple. Willie what rule book? Or rather whose rule book? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody Posted January 29, 2014 Report Share Posted January 29, 2014 Hi Woody. The Pre 65 Scottish has always allowed the use of Ceriani, REH,and MP fork,s and yokes. Its interesting to note that you may also be getting it wrong South of the Border!!! Retaining that period look YES. The use of Yamaha, Ossa, Bultaco parts etc NO. The rule book say NO, Its that Simple. Willie ok, I'm happy to be corrected on that if that's the case but I really didn't think they were accepted. There are definitely stranger rules in force just south of the border, yes.... I know what the rules say about Ossa etc forks but this is where the reasoning is flawed (seeing as they look just like MP etc) The rules actually say nothing about billet parts, they just say forks/yokes must be of Pre65 design. But as we know, new billet yokes are allowed. They aren't Pre65 design. Montesa Cota yokes look identical but you can't use them. Ossa yokes/forks are of a design almost identical to MP, but you can't use them Same logic applies just south of the border where the rules are actually a lot more explicit than the Scottish rules, stating that replica parts are allowed as long as they resemble the original (see last paragraph) which makes them even more of a contradiction of purpose, as the purpose is supposed to be to keep period appearance. Ultimately the clubs are entitled to run whatever rules they like but for me, taking a purely pragmatic view, the rules are flawed and fail in what they are supposed to achieve, hence my opinion that it's all contradiction and bollocks... 4 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.