Pre 65 Future & Pre 65 Rules

[woody]

 

3 hours ago, ttspud said:

Ok, let's look at the facts.  These are the Talmag rules (actually they are very similar to the real ACU rules, as they are, though the ACU rules puts Specials (I understand that to be bikes with pre65 bits but from different make/models) into a Specials class, the Talmag acknowledges that they are enterable, but does not separate them out):

 

Which ''real'' ACU rules would these be? Point them out please - if you have the time.  And you do realise the ACU don't run a Pre65 championship?  And that most of the Pre65 events that happen are non-ACU?

Before you continue with your cheat diatribe I suggest you familiarise yourself with the rules of the more regular Pre65 event organisers as if you did you'd understand that modern replica parts are allowed

 

[turbofurball]

16 hours ago, greevesrob said:

Also i know it was said as a joke but the idea of riding in period gear sounds like a laugh abit like the Goodwood revival

I do seriously think it would be really good, have a catering van do bacon sarnies and cups of tea, break out the wellies and bobble hats, etc And although not quite period correct it's possible to get safe helmets that look '70s style reasonably cheaply ... I'd be lying if I said I didn't have a nice '80s outfit that matches my bike, should there be room for a twinshock revival trial too ...

[on it]

3 hours ago, ttspud said:

A personal attack is where the subject of your attack is an individual.  For example, "on it" is not the type of person we want in our sport.  Or "on it" is an idiot for not understanding the rules that exist and that bikes do not conform to the rules.  Or "on it" is a dimwit for not understanding that "not conforming to the rules" is also known as "cheating".  Or why doesnt "on it" show "us" a picture of him riding his bike so that "we" can judge whether "he" is worthy of being called a "cheat".  No-one should be using personal abuse.   But it gets worse here, people actually try to use the "we do not want "on it" here because he is an idiot", that is trying to bully with a group.  It is quite usual for anger and denial to characterise discussion surrounding this, but it should not result in personal attacks and personal abuse.  There is a big difference between using an individual as the subject and talking about the subject at hand, the rules.  

I take a personal attack as a personal attack.  I have no problem with discussion and difference of opinion.  

Edited 3 hours ago by ttspud

seriously what are you on ?   

[ttspud]

2 hours ago, woody said:

Which ''real'' ACU rules would these be?

Yes, they are in the ACU handbook I believe.  They are very similar to the ones above, same sort of thing.  I will dig them out if I still have them, if not, I will see if anyone else has them still.  On the last bit, yes, of course, different clubs now have different rules, and no or almost no original bikes, that is kind of what the whole thing is about.  But some do, that are still trying to use pre65 rules as above.  Trying to get all of that together is tricky. It may never be done. Already posted below.  

Edited November 25, 2021 by ttspud

[ttspud]

1 hour ago, turbofurball said:

riding in period gear sounds like a laugh

It does.

[der_trials]

Isn't the whole point of trials to ride a motorbike around the plotted course and gain pleasure from the experience?  The test is of man and machine vs the course, if another fellow competitor has the means, ability/wallet to modify his chosen machine within the rules then good luck to him.  I've ridden classic trials with many classes and two different routes and ridden ones with one single route for all, the most important part was that I had fun riding my bike, getting mired in rules and eligibility never crossed my mind when I was attempting the route.  As stated above was Sammy Miller cheating when he modified his Ariel to within an inch of its life or was he just a fierce competitor using all the skills and equipment he had at his disposal?  Others rode similar bikes but did not achieve the same success as Samuel Hamilton Miller.

[ttspud]

pre-65 rules.pdfacu_handbook.pdf

@Woody

These are the existing ones that I can find quickly.  The first are Deryks original rules. 

It then moved to Sammy Miller's series, look for page 217 (I think this the 2012 ACU handbook, so it could well be in the latest one too).

The classes are different (obviously Talmag is a 4stroke event), but the idea of having the main components as original (or exact replica, which is universally acknowledged as being fine) is not.

"Classes 1, 2 & 5 must have British Engine, Carburettor, Forks (Max 35mm) and hubs, Original or Replica Frame." for the ACU and 2 catch-all (like Specials) type classes.  These are pre electronic ignition, which is why no mention of electronic ignition.

Deryks rules, which would have formed the basis for Sammy Miller's says:

"1. MACHINE ELIGIBILITY: To be eligible machines must have been manufactured in Britain, prior to the 31 December 1958 for vintage twostroke machines; prior to 31 December 1964 for all pre-unit classes; prior to 31 December 1969 for twostroke and unit construction classes. All major components to include frames, forks, hubs, engines, gearboxes, clutches and carburettors must be of British manufacturer and available before the date of eligibility for the class concerned, with the minor concession that Amal carburettors up to Mk 1 Concentric may be fitted. Motorcycles fitted with non-British components during manufacture, such as Ceriani forks on certain Greeves models and Grimeca hubs on some DOT models, will be accepted asBritish, but those components will not be accepted on machines of other manufacture. Any model of British manufacture but with component parts that are not date eligible, such as alloy slider BSA or Triumph forks (1972) on unit models, may ride in the Specials class. Replica frames are accepted in the class of machine that they replicate provided they are dimensionally accurate replicas, i.e. components from the original models will fit without modification"

Edited November 25, 2021 by ttspud

[woody]

Come on, you're not serious?  You're quoting rules for the original Miller series from 30 years ago. The series evolved, the rules changed but regardless, it doesn't exist any more and the ACU do not run a Pre65 series or have a set of Pre65 rules

 

[jon v8]

A  promise not to post 4 hrs ago, and already 3 more...  I enjoy a healthy debate, but this has gone beyond it. Woody, all the way through this thread has made honest,sensible and very well thought out responses, which TT Spud refuses to accept, he seems to be living in a different world of, (Very) occasional trials.

[ttspud]

30 minutes ago, woody said:

Come on, you're not serious?  You're quoting rules for the original Miller series from 30 years ago. The series evolved, the rules changed but regardless, it doesn't exist any more and the ACU do not run a Pre65 series or have a set of Pre65 rules

You asked to see them, that is why they are there.  Yes, all of that died off.  That is why I put up the rules for the 2022 Talmag, which are the same kind of thing (which is what you asked for confirmation of) and have not changed much in the last 30 years.    

[ttspud]

28 minutes ago, jon v8 said:

A  promise not to post 4 hrs ago, and already 3 more.

They are serious posts. I am not replying to the bs.

[woody]

32 minutes ago, ttspud said:

You asked to see them, that is why they are there.  Yes, all of that died off.  That is why I put up the rules for the 2022 Talmag, which are the same kind of thing (which is what you asked for confirmation of) and have not changed much in the last 30 years.    

I asked to see the current rules because riders can only ride to current rules and as I have already explained, there are no current ACU Pre65 rules. It's like accusing football players of cheating because they aren't adhering to the offside rule from the 90s which no longer exists. I'm not interested in the Talmag rules as they are their own rules for that event only.

Interest in original 50s and 60s bikes has waned considerably due to the riders that used them back then now being too old to ride them, they're in their 80s at least. Most Pre65 riders, those that ride week in week out, are 50 years old plus, many in their 60s and a good few in their 70s and few have any desire to heave around 250lbs plus of old original bike. Those that do have an interest in them, ride them, enjoy them for what they are and have no problem with current class structure or modified bikes. You'd understand if you rode in the same events they do

Most are still ridiing because of the modernised lightweight Bantams and Cubs. Without them they'd have retired. Even modified C15 or B40 are too much in that if they get in trouble they can no longer hold onto it and can get hurt. Anyone with common sense understands this. No-one, as far as I know, has a problem with it and no-one is asking for class revisions. You keep taliking about your rules, amending them etc but what for? Who do you think is going to want them? You're kidding yourself if you think anyone is going to want to impement these ideas. Trials are getting harder and harder top prganise for a variety of reasons, no one wants additional burdens. I'd say if we're lucky we have 10 years maximum left of trials as they currently are. A handful are driven towards winning, most want to just enjoy riding whilst we still can. 

I help coordinate the Rockshocks national championship and in an attempt to encourage more older twinshock bikes from the early 70s, introduced a class specifically for Pre75 bikes with no later parts allowed which I was happy to vet as it would have been easy. The sections are perfectly suitable as they are and they would have been competing against each other, nothing else. What do you think the take up was? I'll tell you. Average 3 entries per event for that class over the first three events out of 100 plus bikes. Times have changed, even riders who rode those bikes back then are now pushing 70. They want later, lighter and easier to handle bikes so that they can still walk Monday morning.

You're living in a dreamland, stop calling people cheats when the bikes they have conform to current rules, not 30 year old rules that are no longer applicable. If you want to resurrect those rules it's been said many times before, lobby one of the clubs to run an event to those rules and if they agree offer to help with scrutineering. If none are interested lobby some like minded riders and form your own club (not hard via AMCA) and run your own event.

If you're not prepared to invest any time or effort into doing this why expect others to burden themselves with the extra work of implementing change, when yours, on the surface, is the only voice calling for it

[ttspud]

1 hour ago, woody said:

I asked to see the current rules because riders can only ride to current rules

Hence the Talmag rules, the Talmag rules are current, fair enough at club level, and as you say, the ACU are no longer really doing much with pre65 rules.  The ACU/Deryk rules are very similar to the Talmag type rules, which is why they were referenced, not because anyone follows them.  Bikes do not conform to the current (club) rules posted as others have confirmed.  

1 hour ago, woody said:

I'm not interested in the Talmag rules as they are their own rules for that event only

That is convenient.  And now things make a lot more sense.  That is one step beyond normal "cheating" whereby sportsmen try to hide the cheating, someone instead just says "I don't like your rules, so they do not exist for me, I am not cheating because I do not recognise the rules.".  You really do not see that as a problem?  There is no sport-wide set of rules at the moment, so club rules are all that there are.

The Talmag is a club.  The rules have not changed for years, and they should be respected.  That event is probably the best event in the whole country, riders come from the continent a and all around the country to be there.  You say that the ACU rules are not being followed and are no current ones, but you won't honour the rules at a club?  That is great.  So, you actually don't want any rules at all, just make them up as you go along.  So, a rider turns up on a Vertigo, renamed Ariel, and says "I am not interested in your rules, bugger off, I am riding my Vertigo Ariel as it is a 2016, 5 years older than your TriHT5".

1 hour ago, woody said:

It's like accusing football players of cheating because they aren't adhering to the offside rule from the 90s which no longer exists.

Not really, even if you are not 'interested' in the rules because of whatever ideology you have, that still means that you are not following the rules that do exist.  All sport has rules, every sport.  That is obvious.  The only ones that won't honour the rules that exist, presumably are those that want to cheat.  You saying that you are not interested in the rules that do exist, nor the most recent sport-wide rules, but cannot see an issue there as the original bikes which do conform leave, well no wonder you are saying the things that you are saying and no wonder, if many think that rules arent necessary as you do, that things are going down this path.

1 hour ago, woody said:

Most are still ridiing because of the modernised lightweight Bantams and Cubs. Without them they'd have retired. Even modified C15 or B40 are too much in that if they get in trouble they can no longer hold onto it and can get hurt. Anyone with common sense understands this

Great.  Long may that continue.  Nothing would change for them.  

1 hour ago, woody said:

stop calling people cheats when the bikes they have conform to current rules,

There are current rules, and the bikes do not conform, that is just a fact. It has been confirmed on this thread, and everyone knows that, it is not hard to work that out.  Call it non-conforming if you like.  Of course, lots of clubs have different rules now to cater for the modified bikes, but originals have disappeared totally in many cases, and I would like to see an effort to save what is left. And of course, the sport is now different and there are very few original bikes left at many clubs, if any.  But there are original bikes left out there, and if the new rules can help stop them leaving, and perhaps help some return, great.

1 hour ago, woody said:

Trials are getting harder and harder top prganise for a variety of reasons, no one wants additional burdens

Yes, of course.  Nothing is easy.  The sport is losing the original bikes, and the rules as written are the least burden that I can think of to try to help that.

1 hour ago, woody said:

30 year old rules that are no longer applicable. If you want to resurrect those rules

Yes, hence the new rules, which are not even 2 months old, and which is the point of the thread, to replace the old rules.  No-one can apply the old rules anymore, as everyone knows and no-one can resurrect them and no-one is trying.

1 hour ago, woody said:

If you're not prepared to invest any time or effort into doing this

  It has been 6 years and counting.  I think that counts as time/effort, Brian thought so.

1 hour ago, woody said:

yours, on the surface, is the only voice calling for it

Yes, it does feel a bit like that, but there are voices out there that think the same way.  It is not surprising that there are not more voices here talking about it because there are few, if any, riders on here of original bikes, and there are not many of those in the whole country.  And they probably feel as though there are so few events anyway that they can really ride in that their interest is on the periphery.  Of course, this might a waste of time and it should have been dealt with decades ago, but it wasn't.  It would make no harm to try at the end of the day, most of the clubs have no original bikes anyway.  You talk of burden but there won't be much or any burden at all for some.  How difficult would it honestly be to actually allow original bikes to be noted down as such so that they can see who they are really competing against?  It is not that hard.  But, if no-one wants to do anything, fair enough.  This discussion has been the most constructive and least abusive yet, so at least that is some progress!

Edited November 25, 2021 by ttspud

[brian0304]

When I said I hoped you rode as well as you typed, it was a comment about typing speed, not a compliment on the content . 
 

basically we are all feeding a troll, and more fool us .

the guy virtually doesn’t ride, won’t organise, obviously doesn’t observe or even attend trials , why are we bothering?

Over and out 

[ttspud]

53 minutes ago, brian0304 said:

troll

Well, this is the definition  "An internet troll is someone who makes intentionally inflammatory, rude, or upsetting statements online to elicit strong emotional responses in people or to steer the conversation off-topic.". That sounds like you, not me.  Please feel free not to comment at all if the comments are off-topic.  Thanks.

Edited November 25, 2021 by ttspud