Sammy Miller Series 2017 - Proposed Changes

[collyolly]

My previous post with regard to help sort out the 'originals' fair competition situation ( which only TTSpud appears to believe exists ) was really aimed at giving him the opportunity to jump in and give something to the sport and be recognised for it.

Instead of taking the initiative and putting himself forward he appears to have twisted my suggestion round and still puts the work onto the trials organisers on the day, this will never happen, in fact if that was the situation suggested by the ACU for the S.M. series I imagine organisers would rather not get involved.

Now in today's post it transpires that he does not even ride in the S.M. series so why is he involving himself in the potential changes, I have ridden my pre-unit in the series on the hard route and must say that the events I have competed in have been superb.

Now to the really weird bit, in the last post a clip of 1950's trials can be viewed, very interesting but totally irrelevant to the discussion, the whole passage about huge trials entries (450, really ? when and where was that and would you want to sit in that queue ? ) huge sections , going down the road to find another gate with another load of huge sections, what is being discussed here is certainly not the trials I want to get involved in or have ever heard about and I have been actively riding for 40 years.

I hope the S.M. series continues, with a few simple tweeks I think it will and I look forward to riding it not talking about it !

[collyolly]

The earlier question by Petorius is probably spot on, the road aspect is certainly a major factor which is why I imagine a way forward would be to include some off road only trials in the series, it would certainly highlight the problem if those trials got larger entries.

Down here in the South east there are no road trials at all, so if you want to have a go at the S.M. or Scottish you have to go out and get road legal otherwise you could just continue to ride most weekends off road only.

The younger competitor down here (and that means probably anyone under 40 ) does not I imagine have a road licence as the process was tightened up and if you do not ride a bike to work you would certainly not need one for trials.

Up north the situation may be different, perhaps they ride road trials as a norm but not down here

[davetom]

Road Trials = Insurance, which means up to date V5, MOT, licence etc. If that's the only road trial on your calendar, it adds quite a cost.

Over and out.

[collyolly]

Hello TTSpud

Have you been to watch a S.M. trial ?

I have ridden the Talmag for the last few years and I can assure you the sections are not a lot different, any difference is down to the sandy ground, the sections are not any easier or longer. (Easy and hard route)

I ride a modified big pre unit on the harder route at S.M. trials and as my previous post I feel some of the sections are now getting a bit too much for me which is why I have proposed the third 50/50 style route.

I rode the Talmag a couple of years ago when it rained all day, that was a hard day out ! So bear in mind whatever the organisers lay out for us Mother Nature will still get involved.

[laird387]

Hi,

 

I am sorry that, having posted my last comment on this topic, I find another aspect has been raised subsequently that I have facts to assist the consideration, not just opinions to feed the misinformation glut.

 

davetom quite fairly expressed his opinion, succinctly as:  "Road Trials = Insurance, which means up to date V5, MOT, licence etc. If that's the only road trial on your calendar, it adds quite a cost.

Over and out. "

 

You are not unique in that view, Dave, but sadly not quite correct. 

 

That was the view expressed by the SSDT committee when they decided, 12 years after the rest of the UK to introduce a pre-65 element in their pre-SSDT event based in Kinlochleven.  They did not believe riders would undertake the MOT, insurance, rituals in order to ride on the road and reuse some of the traditional Scottish sections. They continued in that vein for several years with a relatively small entry of riders taking part. Then I was approached and suggested they get back out on the road. They had a limit of one hundred and fifty riders imposed by the local authorities and the RAC, which was heavily oversubscribed on the first year - that has continued to be the case every year since and now most people are aware that they could split the two days into two events over the same routes but with separate entries on each day, I.E. twice that entry AND STILL BE OVERSUBSCRIBED.  Now those riders do not just tax and insure their bikes for just that one event - they tax them for at least six months, for example..........so there's 350+ potential entries - and don't think that many of them are there because they live in Scotland anyway, the actual local element is pitifully small (probably because many are involved in the event in other ways).

 

Another pointer close to my heart is the Arbuthnot trial, which I was very much involved in the resurrection. Intended primarily for rigid machines it involves plenty of roadwork and attracted entries close to the hundred mark, the latest on that I have actual statistics for was the 2014 event which had an entry of 89 machines, all British and not a twinshock in sight.

 

There were plenty of riders who contribute to this forum at Barford St. Martin, ask them what their views are.

 

So, apart from the problems of the current authorisation headaches to stay on the roads, it does enable our sport activity to be spread over greater areas, with less concentrated noise and local resident irritation compared to single venue events, moreover it retains the essential element of classic trials in reverting to the way trials were organised before the armada of Spanish machines arrived and changed the nature of trials for ever.

 

Enjoy 

Edited September 7, 2016 by laird387

[davetom]

The annoying thing for me is that I dont think the mood on this forum is in any way reflected on the ground. Fairness or otherwise isn't a subject of concern, with different age blokes riding different sized/ equipped bikes with varying skills

[metisse]

How can any serious trials rider not... have his motorcycle licence. I imagine many on here took their test on a trials bike.   Fantic 240 1982.

 

[davetom]

Spud ; C15 has standard engine and original frame with subframe mods as per back in the day.

Til recently I owned a completely original HT5, steel everything, but it weighed a ton, and was ok for parading but as I'm self employed, was concerned that if it ever fell on me, I'd never work again . Cheers, I'm off this topic now for life

[davetom]

Ha, nice one Spud. Sorry to burst your bubble but I did ride it in the mud at events. I'm not very competitive, which is useful at my skill level , so I chose a manageable bike that I could ride every week without getting hurt. My C15 was my version of Don Morleys in his book, call it highly modified but all the geometry is virtually the same, bar the subframe being lifted, which was done back in the day.The front frame has had all surplus lugs removed, again as back in the day . Rear hub is Rickman, not sure what front is but its heavier at 8lb than the usual Bantam hubs people use . My bike weighs the same as a competive 60s C15.

If I only wanted to ride one event a year, the HT would be perfect, it was a lovely looker, but I try and do 15-20 trials , hence the BSA. You ought to get out more yourself ?

[davetom]

The HT was dangerous with me on it, I'm sure more skilful riders cope fine

[davetom]

I don't have a problem with fairness, no. I regularly ride against different bikes,there are blokes riding billet Bantams that I usually beat, and others on original big bikes that ride rings round me. Maybe I should have more of a competitive streak but I just go out most weeks and enjoy riding.

Yes that is my bike, it looks different now, and I don't live at that house anymore, I'd have given you a pic if you'd asked, I find it a bit creepy that you've gone through 8 yrs of posts to show me a pic of my own bike

[collyolly]

Hi TTSpud

I am getting bored now but what trials had entries of 450 ?

I wish you would stop throwing around questionable facts without backing them up, you admit to not being a competitor, not riding on the road, yet you still keep banging on about fairness in competition when you have an unfair advantage over other new riders to your class ( original ) when you have the use of an ex works bike ( ie modified over the standard otherwise it's not ex works is it ? ) that you have not had to pay for !

I wish I had your advantages.

[collyolly]

Are you sure that number relates to the trials entry at one event ?

As I read it, that is the number of riders who have competed in the requisite number of events of a series to be eligible for an award !

That is a lot different from the number of riders in an event !

Please advise the correct meaning of this post as it is very misleading to keep going on about falling entries when the start point is wrongly interpreted.

Perhaps the original author would care to enlighten us ?

[woody]

Still banging on about unfair competition as the reason for falling entries I see

 

NBB Championship 100+ entries

Manx classic 200+ entries with over 100 oversubscribed

Midlands BMCA championship  50 entries average

Scottish Pre65 180 entries with around 200 oversubscribed

 

All of the above have standard and modified machines competing together in the same class

 

You cite the Talmag as fair to standard machines and representative of how a Pre65 trial should be run. I'm willing to be corrected but there is no specials class which means modified bikes are competing against standard bikes in the same class? If so it has no detrimental effect on entries

 

Whatever the reason for falling entries in the Miller series it has nothing to do with your theory. The number of modified bikes has also decreased, as well as twinshocks. Tell me how that equates to your reasoning?

 

If you had been competing in these events over the last 10 - 15 years and were still in touch with riders who no longer support it and therefore aware of their views and feelings, you may find people give your theory some credibility. But you haven't and you're not so what exactlyhave you based your thinking on?

[woody]

Well you give is a laugh if nothing else Spud

 

You have never competed in any of the series whose rules you criticise - ever. You know nothing of the issues that may affect the Miller series from personal experience, or possible causes for reducing entries - although you overlook the fact that they have been pretty well supported until the last round. I doubt you've actually spoken to or even know anyone who has supported it.

 

You've stated yourself you've never ridden a Miller round, never ridden any of the other trials series whose eligibility criteria you criticise, you admit you've never considered entering a road trial, which means you never will enter a Miller round in the future either, whatever the rules may be.

 

You aren't prepared to actively do anything to rectify a situation that only you seem to think needs rectifying, you just pontificate on here and suggest others implement your ideas

 

You disregard again my points on other trials as they disprove your theory and didn't bother to respond directly to my point about the Talmag having modified and standard machines competing in the same class - a point I'm willing to be proven wrong on but if right has your theory spiraling earthbound in a ball of flame

 

You have no real purpose to involving yourself in these discussions as you'll never ride or assist in the running of an event yourself. Seems to me that as has been mentioned before in your previous topics on Pre65 eligibility, you are just trolling for fun and trying to wind people up.