ttspud

Thanks Brian! I think (and I am not confirming whether I do put as much effort into riding or not!).

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): Frame, forks, hubs, engine, gearbox, ignition and carburettor must be pre65, forks can be from a different machine but still must be pre65 ("manufactured or fitted before December 31st 1965" as stated on the entry form). There is an allowance for the Amal Concentric mk2 carb. Now, also on the entry form is engine serial number, frame serial number and the year of manufacture (taken as the latest date of any major component (those listed above)). What does someone with all modern parts answer there? Do they make something up (lie), or do they put 2020, or 2021? Ok, now you tell me, "are these bikes riding to the rules?". As Jon has already confirmed, 80% of bikes have electronic ignition, just as a starting point. Not yet getting to frame, engine, forks, gearbox, hubs, carburettor and so on. So, the answer to that is no. In other words no, these bikes are not riding to the rules. Put another way, if you want the easier or colloquial expression, "they are cheating". Attacking me constantly for others cheating, is wrong. Accept it, many bikes do not conform to the rules, at all. That is a fact. So, presuming you do realise and accept the facts above, that riders are effectively cheating because their bikes do not conform to the rules, and this has begun (not with Sammy Miller competing back then because that was the up to date competing, just as it is today with your Vertigos etc) probably in the 80s and 90s, little by little, until it is what we have today, some bikes without any original parts on them all, then when were clubs going to intervene and confront those not conforming to the rules? As has also been mentioned, Len Hutty had a bike that did not conform to the rules, even Len (God rest his soul), so who was going to confront him? And if they did, what was going to happen? Probably a lot of abuse, maybe others would disagree, maybe losing entries, and so on. And that is the way it continued for a long time, then the tank, then the frame, then the forks, then the hubs, then the brakes, and so on. Now, it is even harder to confront the 'cheating', so blatant that it is it can hardly be denied but there are so many of them, that some clubs have just 'non-conforming' (would not be conforming with either the Talmag rules or the ACU rules that do exist if you can find them) bikes (so no rules really required because they have no original bikes anyway), then they enter the event (with rules as above), and the riders ignore that their bike does not conform, what then does the club do? It is an even worse position, it is a huge financial outlay, they just want a happy day, riders enjoying the day, as we all want to do (though clearly many originals riders have had enough of the cheating and voted with their feet by leaving), and now that most bikes do not conform, the risk of putting riders off is too much given the outlay. So, the club, on its own, can do little to nothing about it without taking a risk, even though everyone knows the situation, and every year a few more original bikes disappear, just as they have disappeared from other clubs/events, even the Scottish, and losing those bikes is considered, presumably, the lesser risk. From here, the only way to solve this, and to allow everyone to enjoy it, is to have a sport-wide set of rules so that there can be no condemnation at any one club and all clubs accept the responsibility and risk for the situation, where no rider can be condemned for having a bike that does not conform to the rules and said to be 'cheating', and everyone knows who they are actually competing against, and those on an original bike can feel that they are included in the competition by being able to see who they are competing against (because it isnt really possible against a modern pre65), as well as removing the risk for the club that modified riders will leave if they are confronted and remove the risk for the club that original riders will leave if nothing is done about the 'cheating' and its effect on enjoying the competition. In other words, there is good reason why bikes that do not conform to the rules are allowed. And actually, there is an even better reason why I have been fighting to get a good set of rules in place, accepting the abuse that comes my way, because it is the only way forward from here to have your "well they must be or they would not be allowed" become true for the good of the future of the sport. 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.

@trialsrfun @on it @davetom This will be the last response to personal questions. This is not about me and it is inappropriate to make it so or to imply that it is. It is about having a set of rules that can be used to allow both original and modified bikes to compete alongside each other without further burden on clubs. If any more points come in that might help the development of some rules, great. If not, no problem. If no-one ever wishes to try to keep some original bikes in there, no problem. However, if someone, or an event, or a club, does try to do that, then the ideas may help and the rules are here to help. Thanks for all your contributions, it has been a much better discussion that then previous ones. Well done and thank you to those that have helped.

Well, no-one really does, it changes from club to club, event to event. There really are no rules these days. You can, if you have an ACU handbook of the right kind, find them I think (and they did put modified bikes into a Specials class, which the rules here avoid), but it won't matter because clubs don't enforce them anyway. And that all started a long time ago (the non-enforcement) with the switch to the Miller series, for various reasons. So, don't worry, you are not alone, and really it does not matter for the modified bikes anyway, but it would be nice to try to help and keep those riding your dad's type 'proper' bikes in events both for riders and for others to see/hear/enjoy. That is what I would like to see. Yes, he would. It is funny watching the old footage of blokes fighting the big old bikes through mud and hills and rocks, falling off, getting back on, fighting, fighting. Then you watch the typical modern classic trial, and it is often much more gentle (rider ages a little different often!), easy bikes, easy courses, a little dab, avoiding a pebble that you had chosen to miss during your section analysis, still good fun but totally different. I think that is probably why the Talmag is still so popular, because it still retains the old-style type of course, big, wide, long sections, set out specifically for the big bikes. I am glad you are enjoying classic trials, that is what it is for, and always was. I would like to see your fathers bikes remain relevant and being able to still enjoy competing, which is what this discussion is for, so many have been lost. Anyway, good post indeed.

Just read the rules, it is laid out there. If an event does not have the capacity to scrutineer, then don't. Who is going to scrutineer? Whoever did it previously. Let riders self-certify at the club level if the club does not believe it can make the distinction between a modified bike and an original one. It is only to find out for the results so that riders will know who they are riding against, and it is not nearly as difficult as you think because most modified bikes have masses of modifications. How many modified bikes, for example, will have an original frame, engine, seat, tank (given new additional allowance), forks, ignition? How many modified bikes do you have with an original seat? I am guessing none, so not too hard then. What about frames? Same thing, pretty obvious stuff really. Forks? Same thing. Hubs? Same thing. You only need to find one of those, and you will probably easily find all of them. As for the worry about moving a rider to a Specials class, that is impossible, because there is no Specials (or Modified) class. The term sub-class was added for this purpose, it is really just a note, so there is no Specials or Modified class to worry about. In the proper ACU rules, as they are, yes, bike/rider would be moved to a Specials class, and that is why these rules are designed this way, just as a note so that nothing else changes, and there is no confrontation or other change. If you mean worrying about noting down a bike as modified when the rider says it is original, no problem, it does not change a rider's route, nor his class, nor anything else about his day's ride, at all. It is just noting it down in the results so no issue at all. Have you actually read the rules because it is all laid out there in the very first post? If not, go read them, and you will realise that both the scrutineering and Specials issues are explained there. No, I have too little time to start a club, and that is not the point.

Very good point. Part of the reason for starting the discussion in the first place (albeit it was years ago now) was to find out what sort of issues there might be in actually having a working set of rules so that others could move it forward. I still do not really know what all the real issues are because it usually gets so bogged down in the misunderstandings. Anyway, there is progress this time, a few good ideas. It may be all too late for 95% of clubs/events but maybe not too late to save a few bikes/riders who have not yet been put off riding an original bike. Anyway, yes, is the short answer otherwise I would not bother. None of this is easy, and it still may be a total waste of time, as everyone keeps saying, and on top of that, I should be working not going round in circles on a daft page about very old bikes but there it is, mad dogs and englishmen!

No-one would have to change anything, apart from noting down whether the bike is original or one of the modified bikes, that is it. Only scrutineer at events that have competent scrutineers. Other events probably wont have either the original bikes or the scrutineers anyway, so why worry. Not difficult. It would not exclude anyone or cause anyone to change bikes (being just a sub-class or a side-node it that is how you are more comfortable seeing it), you keep missing that point. The Talmag is fairly unique, and as you say there are lots of riders that just do that one trial each year (almost as me, plus maybe a tiny few other trials), come a very long way including the continent to be there and long may the original bikes be ridden there and I do hope that it does not follow the same path as almost all the other events/clubs because then the only place to see these bikes will be in the museum.

@jonv8 All good points, but most have been discussed a lot, so I won't go through them all now. I picked up on a couple though: That is not true anymore if you are talking about one rider on a tricked out bike and one on a pre65, the difference is too great now. The tricked out machinery now is vastly superior in every way to the original pre65 bikes even as they were modified then. Obviously the odd genius rider on a genuine pre65 will still beat an average rider on a tricked out bike, but that is only true for less than 1% of riders. The other 99% do not have a chance on a real pre65 bike against a tricked out modified bike. No-one, including me, expects the clock to be turned back and the modifications to suddenly disappear, but just to draw a line, distinguish the orginals from the tricked out bikes, and have that noted in the results, would be a great addition to the sport and would adversely affect precisely no-one. If you saw the last Talmag, you will have seen bikes that were capable of modern day tricks, air turns, bunny-hops at will, endos, pivot turns, jumps, all sorts of aerobatic-type move that no way are possible on an original bike with original forks, frame, engine, weight, etc etc. Even the absolute best riders out there, even the previous year's winner, called time on trying to compete against that machinery, because it has become impossible even for them. And that is the problem, and that is why these rules are needed, so that, just in the results, a rider can see who he is really competing against regardless of the routes. And it is not much to do, not much to ask. It would be a good thing for the sport to make the distinction, even if it is only at the biggest events that still have the original bikes. Has it ever been tried? I do not think it has. Anyway, if you have something constructive to help with the rules, great, that would be helpful. Yes, this is quite so. The Talmag rules are fairly specific, and yes, many, even most, of the bikes at the Talmag do not comply with the rules on the entry form. The usual name for that would be 'cheating', though it has become so widespread now that there is little point in saying 'cheating' because so many would fall under that banner. It is now a smaller task to find those that are not cheating (as it were)!. When it first began, roughly around late 80s, early 90s (if my memory serves me correctly), the 'cheats' were very much hidden. Shock internals, engine internals and so on. Yes, Len Hutty's bike had a trick clutch from very early on, trick ignition, among other things, so yes, technically it was modified and did not comply with the rules. As you say, he was a good rider and would have done well anyway though would he have been as successful, probably not, especially not in the Talmag timed section which increasingly favours better machinery. The Talmag will tell you why they do not confront riders that do not comply with the rules, I cannot tell you what they would say, and that is similar, for a lot of decades, as many other clubs. One of the reasons will be that it is not a very easy or nice thing to have to confront a rider who is cheating and probably have to put up with a lot of abuse for their trouble (ironically as I find here with baseless accusations about many non-related things coming mostly from riders of 'tricked up' or if you like 'cheat' bikes). Maybe nothing will every happen to address this, but I do not see there being much difficulty in addressing it, at least at the bigger events which already have competent scrutineering (let's face it, it is not hard now to spot a bike with modifications, it is almost harder to spot an original part!), and so I am simply trying to help that occur. It is difficult discussing this stuff, but that is fine, I also get increasing support as the years have gone by. I understand those that feel under attack because of what has happened. This has been the most constructive discussion on the subject yet, so that is great.

What for? You are an abusive person, nothing more. You will go on and on trying to be abusive, hoping to get an abusive response, but you will not get one. This is a discussion, nothing more. If you want to get abusive, carry on.

If someone believes that all riders that ride at the weekend week in/week out, and all those that set out the trials, are cheats and trophy hunters, then attack that position and that argument by all means. They are not being personally abusive. However, do not get personally abusive by seeking to attack the person. The fact that your accusation is not even my position, and never was, and that you are being personally abusive with off-discussion abuse as well and then trying to bring others in to support your bullying and abuse, none of that is appropriate. I would also say that those accusing others of cheating where they are cheating is justified, it might hurt those accused, but it is true and fair discussion. There are others that have been abusive as you have been, and they are staying mostly away if still seeking to support your abusive behaviour in more minor ways. Anyway, as I say, enough of that, if you want to contribute to the discussion, try to do so without being personally abusive about anyone.

You are trying to be abusive, I understand why, which makes it no less abusive. You have probably built up a new 'Ariel HT5' with some trick frame, trick engine, trick forks, trick tank, trick electronics, trick clutch, trick brakes, trick hubs and so on, and are vehemently opposed to any threat to the current advantage that you feel you have created for yourself. You feel that that gives you the right to be abusive, but it doesn't. And the saddest part is that you really feel like being abusive is going to get you somewhere, but it won't. I am indulging you for this reply because you will probably just continue to try to involve others, carry on being abusive and so on anyway, but this way you will understand that it has not gone unnoticed. I do feel sorry for you, you must have other problems to feel that abuse is necessary. Over the years, many people have done exactly what you have just done, from exactly the same position (riding a very modified machine and are utterly opposed to any change to allow original bikes to compete), and I have always attempted to be similarly generous in my response in avoiding being abusive back. If you have some input on the rules, that is great, but, as I said at the beginning, do try to keep the abuse to a minimum. Anyway, I will leave it there.

Allowance for alloy petrol tank for Original bikes, to the same design/dimensions as the original part, added to the rules.

On the 'petrol tank' point, yes, this is a tricky one. Some bikes had alloy petrol tanks as standard whereas some did not. I see no issue in allowing alloy tanks for original bikes which only ever had a steel tank but only in exactly the same design, which would stop bikes having the tiny petrol tanks which immediately would affect the look and spirit of the Original sub-class. No-one else has brought this up, but I think it is a good point. On the rims, no, that is a practical point, the 18" rims are so that it is easy to get the tyres, nothing more than that. Obviously riders can still use the old 19" rims and get reasonable tyres for them (perhaps I am not sure). In earlier discussions about this, there was a Prestige sub-class which was even more original but the difference between an Original and a Prestige was so small that it made very little sense to add that level of complexity to the rules. So, on balance, and that is all that can be done with this, allowing 18" rims is not something I think should be changed.

@trialsrfun Next year, have hardly made it out of the garden this year!

An 'age reward' has been added to the Rules, a good idea I think all round.

@b40rt @greeves @metisse Certainly an interesting idea, an age handicap. "Don't think the handicapping of younger rides would work though to think it would kill of interest for people my age" That is a risk, so perhaps handle it a different way, to not handicap younger riders but give older riders an incentive to ride, not that they probably need it. I would perhaps prefer to think of it as a 'reward' rather than a handicap. In other words, rather than multiplying marks up for anybody, maybe just remove marks for the older riders. I do understand the point that the multiplier would therefore not affect riders on 0, and that would mean that for events such as the Talmag whereby lots of riders end up on 0, it would make no difference. Maybe a better idea would simply be to take marks off (allowing for an overall negative score also), for example, riders over 50 would get 1 mark removed from their score, riders over 60 would get 5 marks removed from their score. Riders over 70 would get 10 marks off their score. Something like that. "Would handicapping really deter anyone" I doubt that it would handled as a reward. Generally, older riders will ride a different course to the 'young guns' anyway. So, a reward for older riders shouldn't put them off.

@TrialsRFun. Yes, you may well be right with the classes. The Talmag is 4 stroke only (and very much set out for the big old bikes with wide sections full of long climbs and sandy conditions which drains well and is soft to land on!), but for other events that allow both 2-stroke and 4-stroke, yes, I see your point. Do you think that events should stick to the same classes, as in try to make them standard? Girder forks in the same class as rigids? Also, maybe a class for sidecars if the course is 'pre65' enough, ie wide enough. It is very difficult for organisers, either have too many classes and too few riders in a class, or too few classes and some riders feel that it is unfair to their machinery. One of the differences that I see in events is that some events allow riders to enter any route for any class, as your suggestion does. Whereas other events link one specific route to each class. In the case of the Talmag, they use the addition of a Clubman class as a catch-all for older riders or casual riders that rider rarely who will all want to ride the easy route regardless of machinery on a non-competitive basis. Interestingly, since the ultra modifieds have gone so far ahead and so many originals have been pushed to the easy route, the easy route has effectively now become a competitive route but is not reported as such, which is a shame, it is only in the last couple of years that publications such as the TMX have actually included the Clubman class results at all. Going forward, hopefully the inclusion of sub-class will encourage riders to go back to the standard route because they can then see who they are actually riding against and enjoy the competition once again. Yes, the Talmag always had 2 courses which should be enough, but due to lobbying by the latest ultra-modifieds finding the courses too easy, for the first time it ran 3 courses in 2020 and some of the originals, for the first time ever including the 2018 winner, decided that things were getting a bit silly and would no longer try to compete with the 'ultras' which are so far advanced against an original it was just making a mockery of it, which is a shame and something which these rules should address as well as it can be done. I do not know what might happen the next time the Talmag runs, possibly not next year though I don't know, but 2 courses, to me, are enough, full stop. Ultra modifieds will all get zero, and so be it, they will have to win or lose on the timed section and just enjoy the day as everyone else. If the Talmag, and any other event, does one day mark down Original/Modified in the entry and results, then at least all riders can see who they are really up against, which would be great. I have not discussed it with them recently though, they have so much pressure on them and do so much work, I hate to put any more stress on them especially during times such as this. It is, to me, the best trial of the year bar none, and long may it continue that way. I think the sub-class would only improve it, but that is their decision whenever they feel it is appropriate.

@ on it. The idea within the rules is not to burden organisers with new routes or new classes. So, the Talmag, as the example you reference, would not need to change any of its classes or routes to follow the rules. It would simply request that riders indicate whether they are riding a Modified or an Original when they enter, to 'ideally' have Original bikes checked for compliance on the day, and then to include the sub-class letter (O or M) alongside the rider in the results so that riders can see who they are actually competing against. That's it. In relation to the Talmag, it is probably between 20 and 50 original bikes out of a total entry of about 200, something like that, the rest obviously Modified. It may be that a first step would be just to let riders self-certify on entry to see how many bikes actually are claiming to be original as well as exploring how difficult it will be to check them. Others, in the days where scrutineering was normal, would know more about how many people try to 'hide' modifications but since no-one is going to exclude a modified bike anyway, I see very little point in riders of modified bikes trying to claim that they are original. I am happy anyway, the idea of the rules is to help the sport retain or increase the original pre65 entry, and to increase existing rider's enjoyment by allowing them to see who is on a similar original bike as well as increasing the enjoyment for spectators.

After remembering this: 1925 Indian At The 2018 Talmag the rules have been altered to allow non-British bikes at the discretion of the Club.

I doubt that would be too much of an issue, it sounds like many bikes ridden/being ridden in pre65 trials were road bike versions anyway, just lightened and so on. Here you go, this guy comes all the way from Germany to ride the Talmag on a 1925 Indian with fairly roadish tyres. Germany's Holger Schonknecht turned out on a 1925 Indian And spectators and riders alike adored the bike, it was absolutely brilliant. That's true, non-British bikes might need adding to those rules.....

@Greevesrob, @Old Geezer, @Trialman, @djr. There seems to be a wide view, and I think correctly so, that bikes should not have to keep all components to the same make/model as that is exactly how pre65 trials originally was. Just from the stories here, and from BSAOtter, it is fairly clear that it was very common to mix components from different bikes. The hope with the rules is to protect the bikes we have and to bring back as many pre65 bikes as possible, and I think changing the rules to include bikes with original components from different make/model bikes as being in the Original sub-class (rather than as Specials or as Modified) is absolutely right and might help to do just that. So, I have just changed the rules to reflect that, I believe that that is the consensus. @Greevesrob, that means that your bike, except for the alloy exhaust, as far as I know from what you have said, is Pre65 Original. Also, if you noticed, there is a Greeves being ridden in the video above... Anyway, I hope that helps, it seems right to me, it is what was being spoken about by Old Geezer, djr and Trialman, so there it is.

Absolutely right. Yes, the UK version of Pre60, Pre65 and pre68 motorcross is very very stringent on originality and compliance also. It is very very popular both with riders and with spectators, probably for that reason, that you know where you stand, spectators like to see original bikes and the bikes do not cost the earth. It is a shame that pre65 trials got itself into such a mess in the UK by not following or enforcing any kind of compliance or originality. Hopefully, without upsetting modified riders, that can be rectified somewhat both for riders and for spectators. I do not know if you have seen some of the original footage of pre65 trials, I could not find the one I was thinking of but this one is quite good!!!

@FullChoke. Fantastic bike, the 500cc version of mine, and in exactly the same original pre65 spec as mine is, unchanged, it would be very nice to see it ridden in events as an Original bike. Mine is ridden every year in competitive events, albeit in the easier routes but other better riders do attempt some of the harder routes on original bikes. Unfortunately, they are up against ultra modified bikes and cannot expect to win, but if they knew who was also on an original bike, at least they would know who they were really competing against. You are absolutely right, people look at the bike and not the rider. My bike sounds great, it is still a long stroke rather than the harsher sound of the short stroke modifieds. It is an original bike, and people enjoy seeing it every year, and each year it gets rarer. It has a great history, I would like to see that continue alongside the few that are left, and hope to see others return if something like these rules can be put into practice. It is not much to do really. Yes, about the 'cheating', it crept in, little by little, at the start it was 'hidden' but everyone knew it was happening yet it was not stopped. Now it is not hidden largely because it has gone so far and there are so few original bikes left that if the rules as they were were enforced then there would be no riders left at some events. There is now no fear at all in having broken the rules (ACU Handbook) because the rules have been long ignored. We cannot go back, and no-one expects that. But something like these rules would protect the bikes we have and hopefully bring some more in. Great post though, very nice to hear that the original bikes are appreciated.

@GreevesRob. With the tyres, there is a thread a few down discussing exactly that; using an innertube with a Tubeless tyre. Maybe have a look at that for some pointers and options. The point is to try to keep the bikes original if possible, and everyone is then in the same boat. Some original bikes as described do get ridden in the trials that I ride in, including mine and friends of mine also, and they are hugely appreciated (the post just above makes that exact point and it is very true, as in it is nice to see them in a museum but much nicer to hear them and see them out there being ridden) by spectator and rider alike. Many have dropped out over the decades of course but this may help to keep those bikes in and maybe bring some originals back in as well. Of course, many modified bikes today have everything modified, if you still have the original frame, engine, ignition, caburettor, clutch and so on, then you could revert to original or just ride as you are, you would be no different than you are now, in that you would just ride the same events in the same way against the same competition as before. I wasn't really considering that many people would revert bikes back to original spec, but it is possible that that may happen for bikes such as yours. Having a 'Specials' sub-class for bikes which would otherwise be eligible as an Original but have mixed make/model components, is maybe something to consider?

@TrialRFun. Yes, thanks!