Jump to content

ttspud

Members
  • Content Count

    153
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ttspud

  1. @B40rt Wonderful picture. Thank you for posting it. Could be next month just without the pipe and with a different hat!
  2. Sure. The mods there were all mods which were typically applied to the bikes before 1965. If you watch any videos of the period, you will see what I mean. There was a Prestige sub-class in the earlier version, and that can be restored to the rules if there is a demand for that, as in not even allowing the mods you see there.
  3. Well, I see. I am not sure if you were here for the very first thread on this, because in the very first post it explained this very thing, that, no, of course I am not going to be the most knowledgeable person in this sport on the history because I was born later whereas others were there. So, I openly asked for help on this forum for that very reason, more on the bikes than anything else but all aspects too, and it has taken this past 6 years to just get to the point of perhaps discussing such things as classes, let alone bikes, and we are not there yet. If it is all left to me, fair enough, but I doubt it will be in the end. Over the years, yes, I have learnt a lot about what went on, how things got here, and so on, which helps. To be fair, if this got to the point of actually becoming a set of rules, that the ACU oversaw, or another body oversaw, then yes, I would gladly put together everything necessary for clubs to know how to handle the rules, including original specs of bikes, literature about the history and so on. But we are not there yet. And I cannot commit that kind of time until we are nearer to moving in that direction, if in fact it ever does. And things will change, other ideas will happen, I am not in any way suggesting that I know all the answers, clearly I do not, however, that is why this thread is here, to find ideas about how to move forward. For example, other classic sports have a registration process to verify the bikes eligibility. That is not being suggested here, but if there is a serious desire to go in that direction for very very original bikes or whatever, then so be it. I really must work now. I appreciate the point.
  4. Yes, I appreciate that. I am working right now, and trying to put some answers in in between working. I am not retired. I do not want to go spend half an hour putting all the information that you asked for onto this website when you are quite capable of going to look it up for yourself. And I do not believe that your point has any bearing whatsoever on trying to get some sport-wide rules in place whereby anyone, with whatever experience or age, is quite able to put in suggestions and help. Your question might be legitimate, but it is not really very relevant. I have just replied multiple times to Woody, I am a good day behind on work, and I need to get on, and Woody and I have just got to a very key point here, which is far more relevant than anything that has so far passed on here. If there is a link between what you are asking and the rules, then do make that point, as in " I think there needs to be that class because in 1954 there was a class X with 100 riders in it", then great, please do so. But I cannot post lots of information on 50/60s trials which is freely available for you to find.
  5. I understand where you are coming from. I disagree. To me, not conforming to the rules is cheating, period. You believe that if something that does not conform to the rules is not hidden and the organisers do not call it out, then you see that as not cheating. I disagree, I see cheating as cheating no matter whether organisers call it out or not, hidden or not. The responsibility is both on riders and clubs. But I do agree that the club has the responsibility to call it out, I do not agree that if they do not that that is not cheating. Is cheating not disrespectful to other riders that are not cheating? Have organisers confirmed to you that their rules are not there to be conformed to because they do not see non-conformance as cheating and will not confront you because of that? Yes, that is cheating, and that is how it all started. It is not as easy to confront cheating as you might think. Riders do have responsibilty also, organisers have a lot of other responsibilities and do expect a little maturity and respect from the riders to not cheat. Really, this is a difference in our positions that means that we arrive at different conclusions. I see a problem in the non-hidden cheating, and you do not. I am pleased to have got to this point, because, after 6 years, it does make sense. Why the anger. Why the upset. Why the obstruction to something which I consider to be no great deal and fairly obvious, whereas you, not seeing non-conformity as cheating, do not. Anyway, I do appreciate the trouble that you have gone to to not be personal, to put your point across clearly and accurately. Addition: Actually, the difference in position may not really matter in the end. In other words, why not accept the two different positions ie 1) riders that do not want to conform and 2) those that do, and note that down, that is point really. In fact, having some rules as suggested, noting the two types, would help both your position, and mine.
  6. @trialsrfun So, you are trying to make a point, but the premise of your point is faulty. In other words, whether someone is breaking the rules does not require any knowledge of anything other than the rules and the bikes. Whether someone knows about the Open entry in 1952 has no bearing on whether a bike entered into a different sport in 2021 which has a non-replica 2021 frame in a trial that means that bike does not conform to their rules today, and whether that is cheating or not. You were not really interested in the answer at all, I had already guessed that, hence the unusually brief response. Perhaps you could have a go at the very simple question, "if a bike enters a trial which does not conform to the club/event rules in any way, is that cheating?"
  7. Great, there are some videos and discussions about it, on TrialsCentral also, start there. It is great to see it all and learn about it.
  8. @Trialsrfun With the greatest of respect, I am not with you on that one. What is your point?
  9. Ok, then confirm this and it will not be 'twisted' in any way; if a bike enters a trial which does not conform to the club/event rules in any way, is that cheating? That is what it boils down to. Is it cheating or not?
  10. I will when I can. It looks great to me. I am sure there are. 60 riders is a good entry. The idea here is to protect what there is at the trials I know of, try to improve things sport-wide and go from there. Maybe nothing can be done, but maybe something can be done too.
  11. Yes, that has been the same for many clubs. Not for the Talmag though, which has had hundreds of originals with only a 4-stroke entry. So it is not the same everywhere. The Talmag still does have lots of entries, hundreds, but it now has a lot of modified bikes that do not conform to the rules, and is losing the originals. Havering, never heard of that one, it obviously wasn't popular down south, mad scots and all! King Canute, nope! None of this matters that much, so what will be will be.
  12. Yes, that is really common I think. If you look at many classic clubs, that is the case, lots of twinshocks, a few lightweights (Bantams etc), a very few big bikes which are very likely trick ones, and then none or a couple of originals if you are very lucky. That is the way things have gone in many clubs, no doubt about it. a new breed of classic (the Fantics etc) are really popular, reliving a childhood and so on. I do not think that that is in any way the cause of the decline of the Pre65s, rather the beginning of a new area of the sport. Nor do I think it has a bearing on the reasons for the decline in pre65. The reasons why Pre65 has lost popularity will be many, no doubt. But the rules one is one of those, and can be fixed, so that clubs that still do have original bikes can protect the entry. Otherwise, all clubs will go down that route and there will be only the twinshock (Fantic etc) and modern pre65s out there. That is the point of this, to try to do something. It is always possible to enlarge the entry criteria to enlarge the entry, allow 2-strokes, allow pre-70s, allow twinshocks or whatever. But that is not really dealing with the issue at hand for pre65 bikes, which isn't "opposite" but a totally separate issue. It is very likely that no-one will be able to increase the pre65 entry much, and certainly not quickly, and no way will the pre65 entry match the twinshock entry, but it would be nice to try to support the existing entry, and maybe hope for a few re-entrants in the years ahead.
  13. Yes, that is great, a very noble sentiment. Unfortunately though, there is an issue which has caused and is still causing the sport to lose so many riders of these bikes, and the bikes, the one being discussed here. Possibly too many people have turned a blind eye to it in the past. Anyway, of course, get out there and enjoy it, without damaging the sport for anyone else, that would be best. I wish it were that simple.
  14. Thanks. I guess I would like to see sport-wide rules in place to help clubs deal with the current situation, as explained throughout the thread and just above. The impact of having vastly different club rules and bikes, with no sport-wide rules, is not good. But, yes, I do wonder if I am wasting my time sometimes, why put this much effort into something that I am not personally going to see that much benefit from, but hopefully the sport will. Yes, I do ride my bike(s), I just am not interested in getting into the 'trolling' that so many here indulge in (ie off-topic messages trying to evoke and emotional response) since this is not about me, it is about the sport. When I see that the original thread is 6 years old, wow, that is amazing. Anyway, good point.
  15. Actually, I have been involved with trials for 40 years, and have ridden, observed and helped organise. Not that that is relevant to a discussion on rules. Great, thanks for you contribution (signing off as a troll is accurate by the way).
  16. That is where we completely disagree. Riders do not stick to one club, so other clubs rules are very relevant. I believe that having very different rules at different clubs can and has had a very serious impact on clubs and creates a big burden on clubs, and riders. I believe that there must be sport-wide rules that allow both kinds of bike to compete and be included for very good reasons, you do not. And you have no interest in how other clubs are run or their rules. Let's look at that (and think of the burden that that attitude will have, which you are concerned with). So club A uses normal Pre-65 rules as laid out by history, has lots of original bikes, very wide, easy course, hundreds of riders. Club B has no original bikes, a handful of very tricked out bikes, so decides that that is fine, ride what you like. As a note, these bikes are (except for rear suspension travel) as good as a modern bike, you can see a modern Bantam happily competing in the Southern Experts at the weekend, for example, 4ft steps, easy. In other words, modern pre65 bikes are a world apart from original pre65 bikes. So, as you say, you have no interest in the sport-wide rules as they have been (there a no others) or clubs that use rules based on them. Well, what happens in that scenario? Well, riders from club B will ride at club A, have your attitude that the rules do not matter, believe that they are not cheating when they categorically are, and that will all cause a lot of problems and a big burden on the club. Club A now has riders from club B on modern machines (which may as well be Vertigos) complaining that they are finding it far too easy, and riders from their own club (club A) finding it too hard already on proper pre65 bikes. Rules are not enforced for the reasons given in an earlier post, for many reasons. So, the club feels in a difficult position, and opens up a 'harder' route, with all the work involved there, more difficult to observe, problems losing riders from their own club that now cannot compete, more work on all aspects of the trial. A much higher burden, with the future looking like becoming club B sooner or later because the originals riders will slowly lose out and walk away. The Vertigo Ariels are being seen as exactly the same as the original bikes, which is ridiculous. Then begins the inevitable decline, as in all club B scenarios, whereby even the riders of the trick machines have had enough of the next guy making his bike even more trick and costing even more money. And that is the current scenario. The problem of having no enforced sport-wide rules that protect the proper pre65 bikes is obvious; cheating becomes rife to the detriment of the less competitive machines, leading to a complete loss of pre65 bikes from the sport, and ultimately a complete loss of the sport itself. Of course, some will enjoy destroying the sport for original bikes in the belief that their way is the right way and everyone else can bugger off. Well, it is actually that attitude that has caused the problem in the first place by not respecting the rules that exist, and cheating. That is the crux of the whole thing. Riders not respecting the rules, being selfish, not caring about the effect of cheating on others. And exporting the damage done by not respecting the rules that exist from one club to the next, slowly destroying each one in terms of pre65 bikes as it goes. It is not right to come to another club, on a non-conforming bike, cheat, and believe that it is ok because their own club has a different set of rules, period. I now understand why you are saying what you are saying. You do not believe in rules because you want to ride a tricked out bike and are worried about the repercussions of having rules that allow both kinds of bike to compete fairly. And you do not believe in club rules that mean that a tricked out bike is cheating. That does not make that position right. Anyway, very enlightening, and now I do understand what has happened and is happening.
  17. 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.
  18. 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. 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". 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. Great. Long may that continue. Nothing would change for them. 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. 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. 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. It has been 6 years and counting. I think that counts as time/effort, Brian thought so. 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!
  19. They are serious posts. I am not replying to the bs.
  20. 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.
  21. 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"
  22. 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.
  23. I am not going to post on here for the foreseeable, I have too much work to do and it is taking too much time and too distracting. So, apologies if serious posts are missed and thanks again for the contributions that helped. Enjoy your riding. Good luck.
×
×
  • Create New...