Original Pre-65 Class

[ttspud]

Hi TrialsRFun,

All of the above is very relevant to your question and illustrates the difficulties already faced by trials organisers. In 4 stroke only events you would get riders on all sorts of Triumph twin as well as Cubs, C15, B40, Royal Enfield Bullet, Crusader & the AMC singles both AJS & Matchless, if you are lucky a Norton 500T or two as well.

I accept that running a trial can be tough, of course, but your point is only relevant if there is to be significant extra overhead from having an original pre-65 class. So far, there might be some extra competence needed during scrutineering, but not too much. Other than that, what extra overhead do you foresee?

For context, would you personally enter an original pre-65 class, or would you enter the modified class?

Perhaps the issue here is that many people are worried about the effects on the modified class? To me, that is no problem. No-one is suggesting that modified bikes should be affected. On the contrary, modified bikes can continue on the course they are on without change.

Or do you simply believe that it is too difficult to specify what the rules for an original pre-65 class should be?

Do you have any objection to an original pre-65 class in principle, given acceptable overhead?

Edited January 31, 2014 by ttspud

[charlie prescott]

Hi Guy's

Question!! Do they scrutineer bike closely at the TALMAG nowadays???

Or do you just enter a bike that is appropriate for that trial?

The other thing is ,if you ran a class for the type of Classic bike you ride ?unmodified in anyway from the original. The route would have to be total'y different from even the "Old Man's" route at most trials!!

Which again would mean more Observers, You can not expect one to run between several routes.

And I know how easy the sections would have to be!! Riding our old AJS down a forest track with the forks,topping and bottoming,showed me how simple the sections need to be. Totally OK if this is the class of bike you are catering for.

But not good just adding a class at any trial.

Extra time setting out these sections, hopefully finding the extra Observers, And then ten bikes turning up for this class!! you do the maths.

Regards Charlie.

[suzuki250]

The way we think about bikes and what we expect from them is totally different to 50 years ago, I doubt many people would actually want to ride a genuine pre65 bike

I’ve rode a quite a few genuine pre65 bikes and the novelty soon wares off!

But it would be good fun watching someone riding with Ensign trials tyres

Edited January 31, 2014 by suzuki250

[trickymicky]

So if an original 1955 AJS and an original 1964 AJS are in the same class, where does the "competing on equal terms" bit come in to it ? What year is yours?

[ttspud]

Hi Charlie,

Do they scrutineer bike closely at the TALMAG nowadays???

Well, they possibly spend a minute or two per bike. They check the spokes, the general condition, the brakes, the wheel bearings and so on. You'd have to ask them exactly what they check. How much extra effort would it be to pick out a modified bike running in the originals class? that would be interesting to know to.

unmodified in anyway from the original.

Well, perhaps not unmodified in any way, that is up for debate. The tyres and suspension are up for debate as possible alterations. But yes, original frame, engine, clutch, seat, ignition, tank and so on, so you would have a properly heavy, proper pre-65 bike.

The route would have to be total'y different from even the "Old Man's" route at most trials!!

No, that is absolutely untrue for the trials that I have attended. There are original bikes as described in both routes already. And as I said earlier, some of those originals riders would prefer a course harder than the hard course is now. The routes would not need altering, at least in the trials that I have ridden in.

Which again would mean more Observers, You can not expect one to run between several routes.

No, there would be no change in the amount of routes.

And I know how easy the sections would have to be!! Riding our old AJS down a forest track with the forks,topping and bottoming,showed me how simple the sections need to be. Totally OK if this is the class of bike you are catering for.

Now you are beginning to grasp where my bike is. It gives away 40kg, 4 inches in ground clearance, length, turning circle, clutch action, clutch weight, clutch usage, delay in ignition, lack of suspension travel, lack of speed.. and so on. To believe that an original can compete on equal terms with the latest modified bikes is unrealistic, and will cause riders either not to ride, to ride just for fun (which is how it has been for a long time, and is unfair) or to modify their bike. A better solution would be to simply have two classes. If I blindfolded you, you would likely be able to pick out a highly modified bike just by sitting on it for 20 seconds, feeling the weight, suspension, clutch and so on. Without a blindfold, it is even easier.

So, yes, I am well aware of how much of a disadvantage an original bike is compared to a modified one of today!! As are you!! In fact, it is now no big thing to win on a modified bike over an original bike, it is very easy and so there really is little point in mixing the two.

To win on an original bike against a modified one is near impossible nowadays, but has happened but only by the absolute top originals riders. However, it is not something that you ought to ask any rider to have to cope with. Better to let both classes ride in classes of their own.

So, no you do not need to add a route or to change the routes. Hard and easy will cater for all as it does now.

But not good just adding a class at any trial.

As long as you don't need a new route, and not much scrutineering overhead, I don't see the problem.

Extra time setting out these sections, hopefully finding the extra Observers, And then ten bikes turning up for this class!! you do the maths.

Again, no. There will be no extra routes. No extra observers. If only ten bikes qualify for that class out of 200+, so be it. But I think there would be more.

If there were no extra routes, no change in the severity of the existing routes, no extra observers, little scrutineering overhead, and let's say 25 riders in the class, would you accept the introduction of an original pre-65 class in principle? Or is there another issue as to why not?

Edited January 31, 2014 by ttspud

[ttspud]

Hi Suzuki,

The way we think about bikes and what we expect from them is totally different to 50 years ago, I doubt many people would actually want to ride a genuine pre65 bike

I’ve rode a quite a few genuine pre65 bikes and the novelty soon wares off!

Do you own an original bike?

I do and I can say that it is beautiful to ride and I have also ridden many others. Much comes down to how they are maintained.

And I think it is very much on the contrary, there may well be enough riders who would like to ride an original bike, given the rules being in place, rather than having to modify them to keep up or for a number of other reasons.

Right now no-one knows because that class has never existed. You may be right, it may be relatively few, but it may also be enough or perhaps even a lot. Who knows.

Edited January 31, 2014 by ttspud

[ttspud]

Hi Micky,

So if an original 1955 AJS and an original 1964 AJS are in the same class, where does the "competing on equal terms" bit come in to it ? What year is yours?

That is funny, my bike is a 1960, so right in the middle. I do not have the knowledge to know how different a 1955 AJS is to a 1964 AJS, but to me it does not matter. They will both have steel frames, wide seats, heavy this and that, and so on. I doubt the difference in those particular two bikes matters that much. I certainly would not worry about the 64 bike being a little better than my 60.

You could also say that a 500 is more competent than a 350 and yes, it is. But again, they are original pre-65 bikes so that is fine. Or you could say that an Ariel HT5 is easier to ride than some of the other bikes, but they are both original pre-65, so that is fine.

The idea here is not to go to the other extreme and have a class for one make, one model in one year. The idea is to introduce a class so that original pre-65 bikes may compete on equal terms without having (as Charlie described so well) to deal with the gulf that now exists between original and modified bikes. That is not to say that it needs any new routes or easier routes. Just that the vast difference should be acknowledged and catered for so that all riders can enjoy the machinery that they enjoy maintaining.

And that is the point. A new originals class might encourage people to compete on these bikes rather than being putting them off for the little extra scrutineering effort that it might take to run.

If you look at modern trials, there are large differences in the design of bikes, but very little in the weight, turning circle, power and so on. I am sure that the same differences inside a class will always exist given a little common sense on how a class is defined. If a class is not defined, or so loosely designed to be irrelevant, and that sport is based on bikes from a long gone era, of course you will get people who try to gain an advantage. As is happening every year. This year it might be clutches, next year the frame, then the engine, then the brakes.. and so on. And what are you left with? A very easy bike to ride. Is that better? That is a debatable point.

There will be others who would prefer to ride originals. If there are no objections, where is the issue? If no riders wish to ride as an original, fair enough. I certainly would and i am certain that I am not alone. Perhaps give them the chance.

I understand that you are very into the modified bikes. Would you consider riding in an originals class at all?

Even if not, do you have any objection to there being an originals pre-65 class in principle accepting that you will never get all bikes the same but that a set of originals rules could be created in order to have that class exist?

Edited January 31, 2014 by ttspud

[trickymicky]

No, i wouldnt be interested.There is an event for modified bikes most weekends and quite local for me. Unless the classes you propose were to spring up all over the place i imagine the mileage involved would be prohibitive for some.

I dont object to a class in principle, and i'm sure some organisers would consider an additional route if there were enough entrants to make it worthwhile.

[ttspud]

Hi Micky,

I dont object to a class in principle, and i'm sure some organisers would consider an additional route if there were enough entrants to make it worthwhile.

Fantastic, I am very pleased. You are the first person that has said that or come close to saying it, and that is great.

Do you know who regulates or has any power over the rules of pre-65? Is there such an organization in existence?

[trickymicky]

Hi Micky,

Fantastic, I am very pleased. You are the first person that has said that or come close to saying it, and that is great.

Do you know who regulates or has any power over the rules of pre-65? Is there such an organization in existence?

What are you on about ?

[woody]

Spud, if you ride your AJS regularly, you must realise that there is no one governing body that presides over Pre65 events

A national championship such as the Miler series has it's rules set by the ACU. The PJ1 championship, I'm not sure who governs that. The Normandale championship has a Pre75 class, again rules set by the ACU. I daresay the VMCC set their own rules for their events.

One off events such as the Talmag, Manx Classic, Scottish or individual club trials for Pre65 are run by the individual clubs responsible - they can set any criteria they like for the rules, routes, classes. Their event, their rules.

Are you talking about trials in your area or a national championship. Both the Miller and PJ1 championships have routes that accommodate a pretty standard Pre65 bike. Then there's your next problem. What do you class as original or standard. You only have to look at DW's pictures to see how modified bikes were back then, using components that were available to improve them. So does original mean use of period components or as it left the factory? I think you'll have a really tough job finding someone with the knowledge to differentiate and regulate that. They'd have to be in their 90s....

Now consider the small band of people devoted to putting on these larger trials. On the day of the event, a few of them will be out checking the route/sections etc. One to take the entries, one to start competitors off, one or two to sort observers. Where's the extra resource coming from to find someone to look at the bike in detail to decide whether they are correctly adorned or in the right class. Imagine the time this would take. And what do you do if Miller tunrs up on GOV132 - Pre65 but hardly standard...

I think you're chasing eutopia and you're not going to find it. Surely it's about riding your bike for the enjoyment of it. You find an event that has suitable sections for you and your bike. I imagine you know who is on a more standard bike and who is on a trick version, so you can still compare scores like for like when the results are out. Or is it about having an award for a standard spec machine? Straight away, riders will look for an advantage - human nature.

Can't help wondering from your posts if you're serious about this or having a bit of fun...

[ttspud]

Hi Micky,

What are you on about ?

I am sorry, perhaps I did not explain them very well. I will try again.

You are the first person that has said 'I don't object to a class in principle', that is great. It is a start. A first step. I have asked that question to others and yours was the first answer and a good answer at that. Brilliant.

I am not at all worried that you have no interest in riding in an original pre-65 class, that is your choice.

Do you know who regulates or has any power over the rules of pre-65? Is there such an organization in existence?

I mean as F1 has the FIA to regulate the rules. As the FA regulates the Premier League. As the LTA regulates tennis. These organizations regulate the rules in a central way so that all entrants are clear on what the rules are. That might be a good thing for pre-65 as well, I just do not know whether it does exist or not, hence my questions. If it does exist, then please let me know who that organization is or better where those existing rules can be found. If not, then that is a whole different issue.

Yes, it could be left to each club to have their own rules, as might be the way now. But that might not be ideal. If the same idea were applied in football, you might turn up at an away game only to find out that the club you were visiting had chosen 100 players a side and you only had 11. You would not win that match and they would not much enjoy winning on such advantaged terms. Better for all that everyone uses the same rules. As you say, people might have to travel a fair way to ride in such events and it would be quite unfair if they have to adjust their bike for a different set of rules at each trial. And that is possibly why the rules are so lenient at such events for the modified bikes, because organizers do not want to turn people away but have no central rules to guide what is acceptable at all pre-65 trials.

So, the question remains and as you are so involved in the sport, I considered that you would know that answer. Is there a corresponding association or organization that regulates pre-65 trials or are the rules simply down to each club to decide?

[charlie prescott]

Hi Guy's.

Right ,

One thing that has not been mention'd is the Age of the riders of the "Original Classic British Trials bikes",that we are talking about.

I know very few young men that own a Original British Classic Trials bike? (well there is the exepsion ,my grandson ,three now you know).

But seriously , I stick with what I have said, you would need a easier route, to get the majority of Classic British trials bikes back out of the shed. Most owner riders are shall we say, Mature, and lugging a 350 lbs bike about for a Sporting trial, is just not on, unless the sections are easy-easy!!!

TT,

You don't know of the existence of the ACU and AMCA then??? but I think you will find that they do not need to rock the boat, and leave it up to individual Clubs or people like me, to make up there own guidelines for classes, they wish to run.

And a question.

Could I be allowed to swap my "Jampots" on my 1952 AJS to Girling ones from a 1960 model. just for a better ride. Or would I then have to ride in the "Specials" class??

Regards and I do mean that!! Charlie. !!!!!

[ttspud]

Hi Woody,

I am so pleased that you replied, I was hoping that you would since your post was pivotal in this topic being started.

Let's get this out of the way first.

Can't help wondering from your posts if you're serious about this or having a bit of fun...

That is a natural reaction due to my approach and you not knowing me. But yes, to answer your concern, I am very serious about it. And no, I do not find this stuff fun. In truth, I find it a little bit sad that the sport has arrived at this point where the mantra seems to be bending non-existent rules to win at any cost. Surely there is room for keeping original bikes alive in a competitive sense. My guess is that there is room and the riders to go with it, if a class catering for originals were to exist.

No, I am not an incredibly serious trials rider but I do enjoy the sport and I do enjoy the sound and feel of the original bikes. More modern bikes are great too, but different, and to my mind no better. I have ridden for 30 years or more but I have never taken it particularly seriously. That said, things could be a lot more enjoyable, and the gap between modified bikes and originals has got to levels, as is universally acknowledged, where expecting riders to compete on equal terms with either bike is possibly causing riders to move away from the sport. And that is bad for the sport. I may of course be wrong and no-one would ride original bikes. But they do now and i cannot see how catering for them is going to make them less attracted to the sport.

In my mind, the integrity of the sport is important. Actually more important than anything else in maintaining interest in it. I may of course be wrong, but that is what I would suggest.

On the other hand, the issue could be dealt with, as always, given the will to do so. Obviously some may have a vested interest in not wanting to see that change. But others will want change. And that is what is up for discussion, whether an originals class is the right approach, whether it is possible, how would it realistically be introduced and so on.

if you ride your AJS regularly, you must realise that there is no one governing body that presides over Pre65 events

Well, no, I have never known that for certain and that was the point, to find out for certain. You have filled in that gap, so thank you.

Both the Miller and PJ1 championships have routes that accommodate a pretty standard Pre65 bike

I suspect though allowing non-original frames, hubs, ignition and so on, or would I be wrong in saying that? Do you have any links to their rules?

What do you class as original or standard

Again, this is to be discussed. We had basically arrived at two votes for no change in anything including tyres and suspension, though those may not be riders wishing to ride in an originals class, so how genuine those answers are is difficult to gauge.

I am sure a line can be drawn. Certainly the class requires the original frame, engine, hubs, brakes, clutch, ignition, seat, tank, kickstart, mudguards as a starting point. Unless there are objections on pragmatic rather than performance grounds. As for tyres/suspension, those things are up for discussion, again on pragmatic grounds.

So does original mean use of period components or as it left the factory?

I would have thought that the idea would be to keep the bikes to the spec they left the factory in including the original works bikes. That would be in the spirit of the original bikes. Of course modifications would be made, as long as they were original pre-65 modifications, then fine.

As already discussed, there will be a few pragmatic (and a few safety) alterations to be potentially allowed.

I would have thought that even if a few things slip through, that that is a far less significant problem than that of ignoring the gulf in performance between that original and the highly modified bikes of today.

Perhaps an originals class is the lesser of two evils.

Where's the extra resource coming from to find someone to look at the bike in detail to decide whether they are correctly adorned or in the right class. Imagine the time this would take.

Yes, this is something that has been brought up and acknowledge from the start. I just don't know. To my eye it is very easy to sport a highly modified bike and that gets ever harder as the bike gets more original. Do you know anyone that might be able to shed some light on that issue?

And what do you do if Miller tunrs up on GOV132 - Pre65 but hardly standard...

Again, this is another question for discussion. If the original GOV132 turns up from pre-65, great, it is eligible. If replicas built last year do, then that is a question for debate.

I think you're chasing eutopia and you're not going to find it

Possibly.

Surely it's about riding your bike for the enjoyment of it.

Yes, of course. I will always enjoy it but I would enjoy it more if I were able to compete on equal terms and not have to hugely modify an original bike in order to do it.

Or is it about having an award for a standard spec machine?

You are the first person to get to this. And this may well be the most difficult thing. Do you award modifieds and not standard bikes if you have two classes? Should it be the pre-65 bikes that are awarded? Or do you simply award both? That, to me, is likely to be one of the big issues for those riding modified bikes when contemplating a class riding the same route, with the same size engine, make and model, only in original pre-65 spec.

As you say, it is the human nature of some to focus on gaining an advantage at all costs. I tend to think a little wider than that and consider the impact that such an attitude might be having on the sport itself. In so many warps of life, i see the same exact difference in attitude, and it is no surprise to me to find it with pre-65 trials in just the same way.

For me, there are more important things than winning. I enjoy competing. I am very happy when I win. But winning is not more important than the sport itself, at least that is how I would see it. If the sport can include more riders and preserve the bike and so sport for future riders, then I cannot see that as a bad thing to attempt to introduce.

Thanks for you post though. I do hope you will help more.

Edited January 31, 2014 by ttspud

[ttspud]

Hi Charlie,

Thanks, no, I do not know an awful lot about how these trials are organized and so on. My family has been involved in trials for a long time and I just tend to go to whatever comes up, with not too much thought beyond that. That said, now I check how old I have become, I have ridden for 3 decades, and that has been a bit of a shock! Where did the years go??!

One thing that has not been mention'd is the Age of the riders of the "Original Classic British Trials bikes",that we are talking about.

Yes, quite. One of the reasons for allowing better suspension internals (or perhaps even better shocks if that were what was wanted) was to save on the knees. I am possibly half the age of some of my fellow competitors but even my knees are not ideal!! So I can quite imagine that others might prefer an originals class but allowing for slightly plusher shock internals or whatever. From what I gather, it is very common to make that modification and many of the 'originals' bikes may already be like that.

This is for you to have your say. What do you think? Which way would you prefer it to be?

This is not going to extend to allowing many modifications, but I can see that a few pragmatic ones might be a very good thing, but only if that was the majority view. For me, I would ride happily either way.

I know very few young men that own a Original British Classic Trials bike?

That is true. But I have met a couple of thirty somethings who would like to get into the sport. That would help. I certainly have no idea which class because the modified bikes are so expensive and the original ones are hard to get hold of. Anyway, there is hope!

But seriously , I stick with what I have said, you would need a easier route, to get the majority of Classic British trials bikes back out of the shed.

Ok, do you mean 3 routes instead of two then? Taking the Talmag as an example, I see many bikes in exactly the trim we are talking about (including altered tyres and suspension) doing very well on both courses. And even in the last three years, one rider won on such a bike beating all of the best riders across the country riding very modified bikes. Of course that exceptional ride for that exceptional reason is never pointed out because everyone just assumes that top riders only ride highly modified bikes, but it is not true.

Sorry, getting back to what you said. Do you think that the easy course for the Talmag could not accomodate riders pulling these bikes out of the shed? I did ride alongside a Dutch chap who had done exactly that, was in a pair of jeans and shoes, had entered the harder course on a truly original bike and obviously found it very difficult indeed!! I even read topics on this subject where those, I think from NZ, could see the way that the sport in the UK has developed, but this poor chap from Holland didn't know!

Perhaps it is best to have a very very easy starter course then for people to get back into these bikes on. Perhaps it would suffice to be sections outside the main course, perhaps a few, just to get them ready to move onto the two main routes. Perhaps it need not be run with so many sections and could be run in a slightly easier way. Perhaps it could truly allow those riders to get back into the sport. It would require some extra observers, which is always cited as the big problem, but perhaps there are some ideas that might help with that being as the results for that course would only be very social indeed.

You don't know of the existence of the ACU and AMCA then???

Well yes, of course the ACU who deal with the annual insurance and such like. The AMCA, that also rings a bell, but I couldn't tell you much more.

but I think you will find that they do not need to rock the boat,

Do you mean that it would be best just to create the class, test it, and if it catches on, great?

Could I be allowed to swap my "Jampots" on my 1952 AJS to Girling ones from a 1960 model. just for a better ride. Or would I then have to ride in the "Specials" class??

Well, there you go, what do you think? If you allow it, others will have that too. To me, yes, that is absolutely fine given that I think that shock internals would probably be an allowable alteration both given the elderly knee thing as well as the fact that those bits do suffer wear and tear as the years go on. The AJS is always a little dodgy both front and back, but so what, as long as it is no different to the other bikes within the same rules, no problem.

Edit!: I just looked up what jampots were! I think mine might still be the 'jampots'. The spring is concealed, is that what you mean? Sorry, I don't mean to backtrack, I just thought that you were talking about internal parts, I don't know why. Do the Girling ones have the springs open as later bikes? For me, I would prefer the original externals to be used. But if it is the case that the majority believe otherwise, then so be it.

Regards and I do mean that!! Charlie. !!!!!

Ah, damn, I remember all the nice things anyone ever said to me going back to when I was tiny. That may well be added to my memory's list.

And I do return the compliment fully. Best regards too.

Edited January 31, 2014 by ttspud