Icmtr Pre 65 Trials Rules

[davetom]

TT Spud,

Your 'fantasy pre-65' regs throw up as many issues as they solve? Last year I sold my dead stock Ariel HT ( ex Bob Eyers, I'm sure Deryk would have known him?), now if I was to turn up on that to one of your trials, I'd be immediately disadvantaged by its steel rims and bars, original poorly damped suspension, standard pegs etc.

Now steel rims and bars are easily available, levers too so why choose the mods that suit you?

Can you explain why electronic ignition offers enough advantage to get moved out the class, but having say TY fork internals and nice damping front and rear follows your pre-65 rules? Suspension is a lot easier to scruitineer than ignition too.

What suspension do you have, out of curiosity? I'll guess a purist like yourself has original shocks with 50's spec (lack of) damping? Do you run standard ( to your bike) forks too?

Replica frames are ruled out too as no replica frame is ever as heavy as the original. I'd rule out tubeless rims too, as compression punctures happen much easier on 300lb bikes than 200lb, so the tubeless folks will get away with much lower pressures.

And please do away with the hissy fits and fake indignation, the guy from the Yorks club offered reasoned arguments based on his experience, and you reacted like a typical Internet keyboard revolutionary

[big_red_bike]

Wow, well done for having the courage to be so honest (and attracting multiple 'likes' to the same opinion so quickly, it seems you are not alone).

I believe that your club is the Peaks club which has utterly loose rules allowing basically anything under a pre-65 or 'classic' banner, almost any modification goes, now I understand why, you have a deep distaste for the original pre-65 bikes. To you they are not just 'inconvenient', they are unenjoyable and their riders are masochistic. I really hope that you are joking or have downed more than one bottle of wine this evening.

To me, it is amazing that you can run a classic club with the honestly held belief that no-one could enjoy the sport as it was designed to be, that is mostly riding original big, heavy, long, slow, loud, pre-65, British, four-stroke bikes. Are you sure this is the sport for you? If you cannot handle these bikes and believe that others that can are mad to do so and in need of A&E, perhaps you would be better off in the modern clubs where you can ride a much lighter, easier to handle machine, rather than trying to make pre-65 bikes into modern bikes that they were never meant to be?

To me, you have described a common oddity amongst those modifying their bikes to such an extreme degree. Why don't you just ride a more modern machine, rather than mutilating a pre-65 bike to be something it is not. If you hate the heft of an original pre-65 bike, perhaps consider buying a modern one and riding it in modern events, and at the very least, do not run a club and effectively make it next to impossible for an original bike to have an enjoyable day because of a lack of support for rules which allow them to compete with similar machinery.

i do not think it is a very good advert for any club, or the sport, to be so openly anti the riders that still ride the original pre-65 bikes, without such bikes there would be no integrity in the pre-65 sport at all. I am still amazed that you can say what you did without realising how damaging that viewpoint is, it is not 1st April until tomorrow, so you cannot even blame it on that.

Well, at the events I have been to, there are always a lot of people watching. And they usually come to see the big, original pre-65 bikes, because they sound good, look good and represent a piece of British history. I for one care about other people's wishes and try to consider how I might affect them. Also, it is sometimes the case that those watching those events show an interest in the bikes and sport, ask questions and so on, and from that can develop the interest which results in new riders joining the sport, and that too is a reason to value spectators.

If I am riding in a pre-65 event, then I enjoy the fact that the people watching are getting something out of seeing and hearing these wonderful bikes, as I do. If you do not realise how wonderful some of these old bikes are, then you are very much in the minority amongst those that I have witnessed watching such events.

Wow. There are no words to express how inappropriate that is. But it does explain a lot.

Hi TTspud i think you have forgot trials is a test of man against the course Peak Classic and many other clubs run trials with lots of routes some you could ride on a road bike.So why not just pick a route you can ride and have a good days sport.or do you want a trial and route just to suit your chosen bike to give you a chance to win . If you rode modern trials and bought a 1990 bike would you want your own route so you do not have to compete against 2015 bikes. You chose your bike just ride it ,do not blame the clubs because it is not competitive . By the way i ride a triumph twin and it dose not bother me that i have to ride against cubs and bantams i built it for the sound and enjoyment.

[big_red_bike]

Hi Big Red,

This was discussed at some length in the 'Original Pre-65 Class' thread. It simply boils down to the fact that it is more enjoyable when you are able to compete, as in on equal terms, than not. I think Deryk pointed out that his entries rose dramatically when rules to separate out specials from originals were introduced, re-inforcing the point that fair competition counts.

It is not about routes, as the rules state, the routes remain attached to a class, not the sub-class. It is the sub-class that identifies the type of bike, ie Original or Modified. And for me, I am not focused on winning, but I do not like competing on an unfair basis, I find competing on an unfair basis far less enjoyable and in the case of pre-65 trials, totally unnecessary.

Funnily enough, from memory, I think that I have noticed some pre-90 classes, perhaps it was with twin-shocks vs monos in mind. Anyway, I have only entered events on the pre-65 and modern bikes throughout my life. For the twinshock classes, whilst I have ridden twinshocks when they were the modern thing, I haven't yet wanted to re-visit those bikes but I find it great that others do find enjoyment there.

Well, the bike was chosen 30 or more years ago and is competitive against similar machinery of the period. This is the whole point. In the intervening decades, and increasingly over the last decade, the rules governing machinery have been broken, not enforced or have not existed, now this same bike has been made uncompetitive, not through choice but because clubs or governing bodies have failed to introduce and enforce rules, simply because it is being asked to ride against bikes which have no real resemblance to a pre-65 bike, and the exact metrics of that have been properly detailed earlier in the thread.

If one has to aportion blame, then you have to level that blame mostly at those that have slowly allowed the bikes to get to the stage they are at without doing anything to stop them. Ultimately, if riders are allowed to cheat, some will, then others will feel forced to follow. Many will find cheating abhorrent, but some will see it as a justifiable indiscretion in order to win. And now, and for the last few decades, and as a direct result, the entries of original bikes are falling, and fast. And not by a few, but catastrophically so, again as detailed earlier. Yes, the Yorks club is successful, but perhaps not with retaining the original big bikes and perhaps part of that reason is to do with the current lack of fairness rather than riders being too old or riders just not wanting to enjoy the day.

Brilliant. I think the evidence of few big bikes at the Yorks, anecdotal evidence from Deryk on the effect of separating the specials, my own experience, the evidence from the most prominent originals big bike event in the country, and the example quotes posted here, do all rather indicate that there is a problem which is causing riders to leave.

That is interesting, so would the bike you built conform to the Originals sub-class or the Modified sub-class? Does it have an original frame? If not, is the modern frame lighter, shorter, higher? Does it have an original engine? Is the engine modified? The clutch modified? Brakes? Electronic ignition? 'Replica' hubs? Aluminium tank? Sprung seat? Any titanium or carbon parts? Original carb? And so on. Or have you restored an original bike with minimum modifications?

In other words, are you expressing the situation where you are riding an original bike against modified ones, as described, as is the issue at hand that you say you are not bothered by, or is the bike you have built a modified bike in the first place and so you are not going to be bothered because you are not really experiencing the issue anyway (putting the possibility of you not wanting to gain any enjoyment from competing to one side)?

One more thing. For many years, a couple of decades even, I did just take the hit, not worry and each year the gap got wider, I have watched as heros were made of riders on highly modified bikes and others be almost ignored despite being miraculously victorious on original bikes, a vastly more admirable achievement. It has seemed for a long time that it was not just that original bikes were being disadvantaged, but they truly were not as welcome to enter or wanted to enter. Why have there been no supportable rules in place? There were rumblings of course. People unhappy and ignored and leaving. But now, the gap is ridiculous and the situation is declining rapidly and really, if nothing is done, then there will be no original pre-65 bikes competing at all, and that, more than for just me, would truly not be a proud day for this sport.

All the best, TTSpud

Hi TT spud Yes my triumph is modified with an enfield frame but it is still a very heavy bike. The only way to have a truly fair competition would be for every one to ride the same bike. Even back in the day some bikes were better than others in standard form as most were converted road bikes.The part you wrote about old age not being anything to do with the lack of big bikes ,try getting into trouble big time it hurts a lot more with a big bike.Do you want to drop 300 pound plus on you if you are in your 60s.

Edited April 1, 2015 by big_red_bike

[davetom]

Out of curiosity TT Spud, what forks and shocks are on your bike? Are your rims, bars and levers steel or alloy ?

[old trials fanatic]

Oh boy Dabster has Dad of 2 now i get you.

You had a right pop at me personally and the Club i run on my own may i add so i am going to make a few points and i dont really give a damn TTspud what you think but making them just for the record.

FYI i entered my first trial in 1967 and have ridden most weekends ever since so i ACTUALLY have experience of riding and before that observing at that time till the present day. What were YOU doing then ?

I run Peak Classic Trials Club single handed and not only lay out the course i liaise with landowners and the governing body, do the results, sort the entries, maintain the website including write ups for T&MX News when they bother to publish them and even sort the soddin flags out EVERY MONTH thats 12 times a year in all weathers. The other year i shovelled the snow off the access road so that people could even get to the trial. ON MY OWN !!! I have been doing this for the last 5 years. You havent yet named, however you had to name mine, the club YOU run that YOU set out the course for every month that YOU officiate for ! Exactly how many Trials a year do YOU set out single handedly ? How long has YOUR club been running YOUR rules ?

Also if you had bothered to do your research properly you might have noticed that we give bonus Championship points to riders of rigids and actually welcome, unlike YOUR assumption that we dont, riders of the bigger 4 strokes but in this area they are very few and far between. We regularly have an AJS both springers and rigids along with Ariels and even a pre World War 2 Japette competing. However YOU and YOUR rules would make them all ride as specials even the rigid framed JAP engined Vellocette c/w girder forks and a rider with one leg who is currently leading the Intermediate Championship standings after Sundays trial.

Do you really think the owners of these highly original pieces of the British Motor Cycle "Industry" really want to smash them against rocks every weekend ? I dont know what planet you live on or what you are smoking but round here it aint ever gonna happen.

You also had a pop about my attitude to spectators well in the world i have to live in they are irrelevant at best and a bloody nuisance most of the time. Most of the venues around here have very limited access and parking and every space is needed for competitors you know the people who take part in the COMPETITION i.e. the trial. These "spectators" usually just dump their car where they feel like sometimes blocking or severely restricting access for farmers and locals alike and they offer nothing whatsoever to the running of the trial. They more often than not get in the way of riders even sometimes in the sections so yes i dont think they are a consideration and quite often more of a pest. If we are talking about the Scottish 2 day then that is different as the club makes a lot of much needed revenue from programme sales and if not for that the costs would have to be passed onto the riders so in their case they are a necessary evil.

As for what i call the Club I will call it what i damn well like and you can rename yours to what you like assuming you actually run one. what was the name of the Club you run by the way ?

My opinion of genuine as in unmodified P65 bikes is exactly MY OPINION you have the right to dissagree but i respect your right to have yours so do me the courtesy of responding likewise. I think sorry know they are in desperate need of improvement you disagree lets just agree to disagree on that.

My opinion again but if a club wishes to adopt your rules then seriously good luck to them but they need to start their own series Championship whatever. From my reading between the lines you favour more of a pageant and i believe a trial is first and foremost a competitive event. Yours seems to me anyway more like a Concours / rivet counters fest which is fine if that is what people want. Not for me. I dont even understand why people go to Telford and look at competition bikes NOT competing but thats me i would much sooner be riding in an event any day.

So you have named and cited my Club so which Club do you run ? which Club is running YOUR rules ? when is your next event that you are laying out the course for ? How many entries have you got pledged ?

[davetom]

You still don't say what suspension your bike has, just that it fits into the appropriate sub class..

Maybe because you wrote the sub class regs ?

Why are others bikes modified in ways that tear the sport apart, but you having non standard forks / shocks is a "sensible decision"?

Let's face it, if you haven't got steel rims, bars and levers, it's because you chose to. Most back in the day used the heavier stuff,its cheaper, tougher and easily available so you've consciously decided that' it's ok.

I love to see the big bikes too, I agreed with the previous post as it made me laugh when this debate was getting po-faced, and I hoped it might prick your pomposity a little.

Off to the garage, I may be a while..

[totalshell]

steel rims are significantly cheaper than alloy and readily available 19 inch trials tyres are as well the decsion to allow 18 is based on post 65 availability thankfully that is now resolved. it matters not a jot if the tyres arent very grippy we ll all be on the same ones and they ll be no outrageously steep hills or rocks to hop off.. as they ll be no rocks to hop off modern rear shocks are wasted , basic oil filled steel bodied shocks with rubber eyes should be the standard keeping costs down and bikes real forks should have OEM internals why do you need anything else ? let me know when the first trial is and i ll be along on my ajay

[woody]

You may have the best of intentions Spud but your rules can be easily exploited. In addition they do nothing to keep a level playing field of bikes in original Pre65 trim, which I believe, was the intention?

Modified forks in the original class??? So if you have the money to pay someone (£500) or the machining skills to do it yourself, you can have a set of roadholder bottoms with modern internals, or even machine or cast your own new replica bottoms to take modern internals. Meanwhile, Joe Average with little money, no machining skills, is stuck with the original and utterly ineffective forks. You say it's for practicality but I see nothing practical about it. Surely it's the very thing you're criticising? And, it's where it all started back in the late 80s as forks were the first things to be modified (and disguised) You're allowing the people that can, to create modern exhausts, airboxes etc. If they are fitting alloy rims then whilst they're at it they'll fit replica alloy Cub hubs to lace them to and pain them black - that's running to £1000 a pair of wheels. Practical or just favouring the man with money or engineering skills? I can't see the difference between that and what's already happening. Joe average ends up in his original bike, someone with means and the desire to do so ends up with a modernised machine, superior in many respects, at a hefty price.

Unless you have a scrutineer that is able to virtually dismantle certain components, there is no way your rules will stop modern parts being used. This is why they are now accepted. Because back in the 80s, when the modifications first began with the advent of the Sebac series and the increasing popularity of the Scottish, there were some very good riders (ex champions and world round and national trial winners) taking part - far removed from the disgruntled band of average club riders who formed Pre65 10 years earlier. They were still very good riders and just as when they were factory or supported riders they had a very strong will to win. Many had ridden genuine Pre65 bikes in that era but had experienced much better machinery in the intervening years. Better components were now available but obviously not allowed - yes, there were rules back then, just the same as yours are now in terms of what components could be used. These riders wanted the best machinery, just as they had benefitted from in earlier times. They had modern internals slipped into their forks. The forks looked standard but anyone with a bit of nouse could see they actually worked up rocky sections as opposed to the pogo action of the standard items. Then they wanted the engines better, so internal mods began on those. Then exhausts. Then the clutches and ignitions. All disguised in standard casings

The bikes back then, late 80s, early 90s, still looked pretty well standard. How would any club official prove that illegal internal mods were being made using modern materials without taking components apart. Who would have time to do this and which rider would sit there and let someone dismantle a bike before the start of a trial - or at all... Then the quest for lightening the bikes began with replica frames. The frames were then modified to give better geometry but that's not exactly easy to spot. 'Ordinary' riders with money to spare or machining skills of their own began modifying their own bikes, or bikes of friends. And so it went on.

So how can you blame any club or organisation for this? How can they be responsible? The rules were there, it was riders who bent them and there was little a club could do about it. The same would apply to your proposed rules and the rules originally drafted by Deryk.

So what do you do? Follow what happens in other motorsports and have all competitors report for scrutineering the day before the trial in order that a team of expert scrutineers can thoroughly examine every bike, including removing components where necessary (a condition of taking part) and then where appropriate, move any bike they deem ineligible to the specials class? Unworkable with people having to stay overnight in accomodation for the event the next day, meaning two days away, increased costs and where does every club get this team of expert scrutineers?

The 'problem', if there is one in Pre65, is that there are very few riders left now who rode these bikes in their era, that aren't below their late 60s in age. As has been mentioned before they can't or don't want to struggle with a big heavy bike any more, They want to go out and enjoy riding a modified bike. Hence the popularity of lightweight Bantams now. The remaining (most of) Pre65 competitors now have streamed through from late 60s and the 70s which was a different style of riding with harder sections (although some of the video I've seen of some earlier trials from 60s, I wouldn't call them easy) These riders don't really want a section that is akin to riding up a green lane. Neither do they want British Champs style severity sections. They want something that provides a challenge and that's why it has evolved like it has. It's just evolution.

If the riders are still out there who want to ride a standard big thumper over traditional sections, then why doesn't someone put a series together and make it clear what it is for - Completely unmodified bikes. It's been done for twinshocks this past year so why can't someone do the same for Brit thumpers and create a series for unmodified bikes if the demand is there?

Leave the rest alone, whether you or anyone else agrees with it or not, what's done is done and can't be reversed, the bottom line being being more people seem to prefer riding the modified bikes than the standard version - So did Sammy...

I was watching a video of the Ilkley grand national recently, from sometime in the late 50s I think, and it was very difficult. Big rigids stuck up to their engines in mud with their fit young riders struggling like hell to free them. Riders, again fit young men, being bounced all over the place up rocky tracks which were just lanes. These were what are now referred to as traditional rather than modern sections, but show me many 60 to 70+ year olds who who are the riders from that era, who would want to ride a big bike like that at their age.Many? There is more than one reason they've been modernised

[old trials fanatic]

As always well put Woody

[suzuki250]

Who actually says the sport has a problem, I don’t hear many moaning at trials?

Most riders just seem to enjoy the events, ride their bikes and go home!

If you don’t like the clubs rules, then don’t ride there….simple

[woody]

Hi Woody,

At this point, it will be a big and important step just to introduce unambiguous and inclusive rules, and in time I am sure that solutions will be found to many of the issues surrounding the scrutineering that will undoubtedly be brought up.

I think this one has been answered before. Ultimately it is the responsibility of the club to have enforcable rules and enforce them. In no other sport would the player be blamed for not adhering to a rule that does not exist or is not enforced.

The original rules in the Sebac series weren't ambiguous. There were three classes, Unit, Pre-Unit and Twinshock. Riders cleverly modified their bikes internally, externally they looked standard. How could a club prove that the bikes had been modified internally without removing cases etc?

The rules were clear not ambiguous, riders bent them, the clubs couldn't do much about it. How would you have addressed it? How would you have known there was a problem to address?

This one has been answered many times. There is a problem, very clearly, read the above. There are riders who will ride these bikes as long as they can enjoy a competitive days ride, and that depends on rules. Bikes are often handed down through generations, as is the case with me.

They are getting a competitive ride now. The Northern bike series caters for Pre65 only. They have healthy entries for every round, Sunday's Poachers had over 100 with a mix of modified and unmodified bikes. Same with the rest of the trials in that series. If riders were fed up with the current situation there would be less entries wouldn't you say? The Miller rounds have twinshocks and sidecars as well so the spread of abilities for both rider and machine is wide. Most clubs cope very well with that spread and rarely are there complaints from the standard big bike riders that the trials are unsuitable - I could be wrong but they seem to keep entering them, so can't be all bad, but as one or two of them who post on here have said, the class does need splitting back to Unit and Pre-Unit.

This one has been answered above. New events, clubs or routes are not needed, just the adoption of rules allowing original bikes to compete fairly.

Your rules will not do anything to enable standard bikes to compete fairly, see next point

This one has been answered above. Some alterations for practicality are included.

Practicality in what respect. If I wheel out an original late 50s AJS I would have to ride it as it is. I have no skills to make any of the alterations your rules allow. For me to 'compete fairly' as you put it, or on equal machinery, with someone who has made your allowed modifications, I'd have to pay £500 for fiddle forks and £1000 for alloy rims with the inevitable pattern alloy hubs. I'd have to pay someone another few hundred for the alloy airbox, oil tank, titanium front pipe and modern spec alloy exhaust system. So far, keeping the bike 'original' has cost me over £2k, just to keep it on a par with what others will do. Those are the mods you allow in your original class and I'm dumfounded that you can call it original given your personal view on modified bikes when this is exactly what is happening now... Then there are the mods you won't allow but which will be made anyway because you can't see them unless you start dismantling components. More money on a modern clutch, gearbox, electrics, alloy barrel disguised, modern piston, altered stroke, lightweight materials, special cams. How will you police this as it will be your fault if the rider does it, seeing as it's the club's responsibility to prevent it happening?

Well, one reason really, to gain a competitive advantage by making them easier to ride in the absence of enforced rules to stop them. Otherwise, why bother to modify them? If it is just that someone likes a light bike, then go buy a modern one.

There a far more many riders who gain no advantage as their skill level doesn't allow it, they will never win. They don't ride to win, they ride to get out and enjoy the bike. If riding a modified British bike keeps them riding then good as they probably have no interest in riding a modern bike which will rip the shoulder sockets out of most pensioners, they're too much for most club riders if the truth be told.

You keep blaming the rules. The rules have always been clear but evolved into what they are now because no matter how clear, riders were finding a way around them and how could it be proved in respect of every component of every bike?

I'm still interested to know how you think it should have been approached, back in the 80s when it all started. What would you have done at the start of a trial with over 100 bikes to ascertain which should be moved into a specials class and which were considered standard?

All the best, TTSpud

[big_red_bike]

Spud you seem to be having a dig at me when i mentioned i ride i TRIFIELD trying to say i am cheating .For your information when i competed in the northern bike championship i entered in the specials class i knew my bike was modified and did not try to hide anything.You also seem to know little about pre 65 competitions when you keep mentioning trick trifields ,if you go to any trial and look at the bantams and cubs then it makes most trifields look prehistoric.

[old trials fanatic]

"The situation though is very diffent down south where there are far more genuine, original bikes." I think this sentence explains a lot. He is writing from his perspective as a southerner and knows little of the real sport of trials on real trials terrain. TTspud may or may not have a arguable point based on a southerners perspective i neither know nor care. What i do know is i will be astounded if any of the real Classic Trials Clubs who organise month in month out real trials for real trials riders over authentic trials terrain will ever even consider adopting his "rules" let alone do so. Even on the easy Clubmen routes truly Original bikes, as against the effectively highly modified ones that his rules would encourage, would struggle to get round simply being unable to complete the course in one piece.

Our club rules allow someone to build a budget P65 machine as long as the motor and frame come from a period machine or if replica then it is recognisable as the machine it purports to be. Want to use Ossa, Bultaco, Montesa hubs wheels forks then thats ok by us the same as using Ossa petrol tanks etc. Whats the big deal about that ? We are trying to encourage participation not deter riders from riding as are most Classic Clubs wherever they are. Excluding riders or worse will not encourage them to keep YOUR club afloat. Thats the real world i live in. We like most Clubs can not afford to exclude or discourage any riders and if enough of these riders of "Original" machines want to let me know they will turn up i will promise to make the Clubman route even easier. With five routes riders can always choose to move up a route or down as health and age takes it's toll.

I feel that riders ride the bikes they have some kind of affinity to for whatever reason and as such we try, as do most other Classic Clubs, to provide them with somewhere that they can ride their bikes alongside like minded people. TT spud has his affinity to the 4 stroke P65 "Original" machines with modifications that he agrees with.

Woody and Totalshell along with many others make very valid points that the current situation isnt broken as we experience it so why break it with these proposed rules and i agree.

As i said earlier TT spud should if he doesnt already run a club and set out courses for these machines and their riders that are currently languishing in a crypt somewhere form one and if there is indeed a need for his kind of event then i am sure he will be inundated with entries and good luck to him and all who sail with him.

I dont believe there is this burning desire for an event run under these rules so please prove me wrong and then all clubs will have to consider adopting them but i seriously doubt it will happen.

[woody]

Hi,

For anyone interested in FACTS.

1. The original rules and discussions were in the 1970's not the '80's - I was there, I took part in the discussions. I wrote the initial rules.

2. From the outset the discrimination between unit and pre-unit, was in relation to the fact that a unit bike could be created in a shorter wheelbase, and therefore handled differently to the longer pre-unit bikes.

3. From the outset the Trifield was specifically placed in the unit category, it had a unit motor/gearbox mounted in a Crusader frame, which had the shorter wheelbase than any Bullet frame, which were all put in the pre-unit class, even though the Enfield Bullet motor and gearbox were bolted together and could be lifted in or out of the frame as a unit, the bolted up unit was still longer than any unit construction motor/gearbox.

Enjoy.............

Yes Deryk, we know you invented Pre65, as you keep telling us...

But my reference to the 80s was to a specific series, the Sebac, not what you were doing a decade before. You formed your series for very different reasons, a group of club riders who found that trials had become too hard for your old bikes, you couldn't afford the latest, so you created a series to ride your old bikes in using more traditional and straightforward sections - at least that's how I interpret what you said, I don't mean it as a derogatory comment..

The Sebac was created to run within modern trials originally but quickly became its own series. The big difference between that and what you did was that the riders who took part in the Sebac also rode modern trials on the then current bikes which were monoshocks. As mentioned before it attracted some good centre riders as well as ex champions and British and world round winners.

The latter were still very competitive and had lost none of their will to win and as before, I imagine they wanted the best chance of doing so by having the best equipment, as they had in their supported days. The difference now was that development had improved components and they knew people who could make modern components fit inside Pre65 skin. What they were doing was nothing different from what they had on their works bikes, better tuned components than customer bikes, but obviously this time using better components than were available in the machine's own era. In the spirit, no, not really, but when you've the mindset to win world and British rounds, it's the way it is, only the best will do. And the best was modern parts hidden inside a British shell.

[woody]

Spud, you're either being deliberately obtuse, missing the point altogether or are just so blinkered you refuse to accept anyone else's view.

I wish you'd stop calling the earlier rules ambiguous. When an event is organised for bikes manufactured before 1965 then that is all the ruling you need. How else can that be interpreted. Bikes and therefore components of Pre 1965 origin, as they were at that time. There is no ambiguity

If riders chose to start bending that rule by hiding modern components in Pre65 skins that is not the fault of the clubs. How could they know what was happening at first, what were the signs when the bike looked unmodified. This is a point you can't answer and just turn it back around to being the fault of ambiguous rules. They weren't, clubs simply didn't have the resources to check bikes once it became apparent what was happening.

Whether you like it or not, your own rules for your original class are allowing many of the modifications you disapprove of...!!! The point of my example of me turning out on a late 50s AJS was completely missed or deliberately disregarded. Which is that your 'original class' rules allow modifications that people who can afford it or engineer it themselves will make the best use of with improvements using modern technology and components. Those that can't do it or afford it are immediately handicapped with an inferior machine because they are riding against a modified special in the original class. There is nothing ambiguous about that fact.

As for this being a conscious decision on the grounds of practicality, you're having a laugh aren't you. I thought the 'original class' was to enable riders on original big bikes to enjoy a competitive ride against similar big bikes. Instead they're up against legally modified specials in the originals class. A bit like it is now....

If you want a trial for standard bikes, it's simple. With the exception of anciliaries such as tyres, shocks etc, you need just one rule - the bikes must be of a type manufactured before 1965 and so must any component not on the exceptions list. No replica parts whatsoever. Your team of scrutineers can visually check external components and I'm assuming they will have the experience to establish whether internal mods have been ,ade. Remember, if a rider bends that most unambiguopus of rules - manufactured before 1965 - it will be the fault of your club, not the rider. But as you seem confident that riders are out there who want to ride these big bikes in their hundreds, they should all be like minded, not cheat and you won't need any scrutineering, will you.

That aside, it seems you just want to exclude every bike other than a big pre-unit.

It's been seen before I know, but take a look at the film in this clip of fit young men, some of whom were top riders, struggling like hell on 50s machinery and ask yourself, how many 60+ year olds could hang onto one of those things now, over those types of traditional sections. And you might understand why many of them are riding lightweight bikes in order that they can carry on riding rather than lying in plastercast and being fed through a straw in hospital