ttspud

@B40rt. I have added some 2 stroke classes for you; Sprung, Rigid, Sidecar and Clubman. It is only an example, the expectation was that clubs would stay with whatever classes they have now, but if you think clubs should use the same classes if they can, then maybe that is right. For now, the emphasis was on sub-class, but perhaps a wider discussion is needed.

@b40rt. Routes and classes are "at the club's discretion". If you want me to add some more 2 stroke classes to the 'example' classes, which 2 stroke ones would you like added? I added some for you.

@Greevesrob. You can put a tube in a tubeless tyre if need be which is easy to do, they often are thicker and heavier, but no problem. Yes, there is a clear distinction between modified and original bikes, two different approaches completely.

Hi Japes, Yes that is possible. Rules would certainly be a good start, they do not need to cost anything nor come from one of the insurance bodies, here is the sub-class version, for discussion, freshly written today... now moved to the top of the Topic.

Hi TrialsRFun, First, thank you for the kind message, the information and the invite. I fear the trials might be bit far away since I have to drive a fair way to collect my bike in the first place but yes, please do send me a private message and let me have some details. The Pre-57 events look brilliant too with proper bikes and some Pre-65s also. Awesome. TTSpud

@Woody. Yes, that may be true. Yes, it may well be that this kind of thing is introduced in my area, it has been discussed for a while now between riders and organisers. The difficulty is doing it in such a way that it includes original bikes without upsetting the modified bike riders. The example that you mention above about enforcing original components on all bikes (such as hubs) will obviously exclude bikes totally; the reason for a sub-class is that it absolutely, categorically excludes no-one. The reason really for discussing again is that the best way forward, eventually, would be, if it does show that it does help maintain an 'original' entry or even increase it, for there to be a sport-wide approach which would allow riders on any original or modified bike to know where they stand. Right now, it is a very hit and miss affair. And yes, it may be too late, and may be pointless, it may also be a different scenario north to south. On the plus side, I enjoyed that discussion a lot, it had none of the nastiness of the previous debates, so, great. With covid issues, I am not sure which events are actually going ahead around me since the risks (outlays) are too high to risk an event cancellation, there have been no proper events for a while. Anyway, good luck with the NBBC, it looks great.

@Woody. Yes, I appreciate all of that, very true. Most of that point of view comes from talking to riders from southern events, not the NBBC ones since I have not ridden those. The question really is "What harm would there be in including a sub-class?". If the only objection to that would be "how would it be implemented?", then let's talk about that. I do not know if it would help bring original bikes back or keep those that the sport has involved, but it might and it is worth a try, to my mind anyway. It may be that only a handful of trials can provide a scrutineer for checking just 'original' bikes, certainly the main trials can do that. Smaller ones, then don't do that at all if that is the only way, it would not be harming them and other solutions may be found. If it is only a localish trial, then, as self-marking, let riders certify their bikes if that is the only way. There could be other ideas that do not involve organisers at all, such as the more formal registration, something similar to the debate in the first post. Anyway, as I say, I do not mind for myself, I am getting older as we all are, there are only a tiny handful of events that are set up for these bikes near me with any kind of appropriate routes. Other trials, I will use a modern bike instead. I will hand down my bike to younger members of my family who will ride or not, just as my bike has been handed down multiple times already. I would like to see these bikes still ridden, and if a sub-class can be worked out to keep people enjoying them, then great. I think you realise now that it would not be excluding anyone.

@Woody. "Of course it's about excluding if you maintain that you can't cater for both.". Where do you get this idea? The point of a sub-class is simply so that riders can see who is riding a modified bike and who is riding an original bike. These days, as others have said, there are so few original bikes so maybe then it would be best to simply have the the default sub-class as modified (which means the riders do not need to do anything) and original bikes would need to be checked/proven in some way or scrutineered as an original. Your NBBC trials, fair enough if there are 70 or 120 bikes, great, how many were truly original with original frame, engine, forks, hubs, electrics, carburetor, tank, seat, clutch? Is it 1, 2, 5, 10, great, and not many to check, they are disappearing but there are some left, as mine. Other events, as you will know, do have a much larger number of original bikes but they are disappearing also. It is only those that would need to be noted as being original and checked in some way. The event goes on as it always does, same routes, same bikes, no-one is excluded except original bikes are noted and in the results you can see which bikes are original and which are modified. And then you can see who you are really competing against if you are riding an original, making it a more attractive sport, keeping the originals in the sport. For me, yes, cost is a factor for something that I only ride once or twice a year, great if cost is not though for others. The other factor, for me, is simply keeping the original bikes going and out there for others to enjoy, which I think is also important. What exactly do you fear about including a sub-class and trying to protect or encourage original bikes in the sport?

@Woody. It is not about excluding anyone, and it is the original bikes that have effectively been excluded or relegated over the past few decades as the cheat bikes made them less competitive and that made riding them less attractive. Some won't mind, but many do. No, I will not be setting up trials or events just for original bikes. If there is no desire to see the original bikes competing within normal classic/pre65 events on a fair basis, so be it, I will just continue on as always. I think it is a sad state of affairs, and I do see a huge decline in original bikes being entered, especially the big pre-units, your NBBC round is no different, 30 riders, a handful of big bikes with probably none being original. Would the addition of a sub-class change that, maybe, maybe not, but it would not hurt to try. Yes, I have spoken to some clubs about this and yes, it may well be that things move in that direction at some point because the gap between the most modified and the least is getting bigger each year. The original idea of Pre65 was to allow people to have fun on and compete on these old bikes, without spending the earth on modern equipment. This is as good a forum as any, the opinions that you read above cover much of it, especially the acknowledgement by many that there is a lot of cheating going on as well as denial by others that there is any cheating going on!! @Old Geezer, @TrialMan, Very very funny!!! Could not agree more.

These are some rules for Pre65 which came out part way through this discussion after adjusting for comments so far received (will continue to adjust if more comments come in), put here so that they are easy to find. The actual start of the debate comment is below. = Pre 65 Rules = 11/9/2021 v1 The following rules are designed to enable organisers to cater for the two predominant types of motorcycle currently being entered into competitive modern Pre-65 trials events; that being original bikes and modified bikes, with the minimum of organisational overhead. Existing riders of modified bikes will see no difference in their entry. Riders of original bikes will need to make sure that their motorcycles comply in order to be classified as riding an original bike. The rules use the concept of a sub-class which is represented by O for ORIGINAL and M for MODIFIED. For example, a rider on an original bike entered into class A has a sub-class O. -- Motorcycle Eligibility – Motorcycles must be manufactured on or before December 31st 1964 for Pre-unit classes. Motorcycles must be manufactured on or before December 31st 1969 for Unit classes. Motorcycles must be manufactured by a British based manufacturer, though exceptions to British made bikes are at the discretion of the Club. -- Example Classes & Prefixes -- Class designation and inclusion are at the Club’s discretion, though these are typical examples using 2 routes (Standard, Easy), classes assigned to routes: [A] 4-stroke Sprung Pre-unit < 300cc (Standard route) [F] 4-stroke Sprung or Rigid with Sidecar Pre-unit (Easy route) [D] 4-stroke Rigid Pre-unit < 300cc (Standard route) [G] 2-stroke Sprung Unit (Standard route) [C] 4-stroke Sprung Pre-unit > 300cc (Standard route) [H] 2-stroke Rigid Unit (Standard route) [D] 4-stroke Rigid Pre-unit > 300cc (Standard route) [J] 2-stroke Sprung or Rigid Sidecar Unit (Easy route) [E] 4-stroke Girder Fork Pre-unit (Standard route) [K] 2-stroke or 4-stroke Clubman (Easy route) -- Routes -- The number of routes and designation of which route each class will ride is at the discretion of the Club. The choice of class is at the discretion of the rider. The sub-class designation does not affect in any way the choice of routes or classes. Including a timed section is at the discretion of the Club. -- Classes & Entry -- Riders enter the main class (for example between A -> K) as well as identifying their motorcycle sub-class as being Original or Modified on entry. Riders that omit to enter a sub-class are entered as Modified by default. Original motorcycles will ideally need to be checked for compliance on the day of the trial, Modified motorcycles will not. If the scrutineer has doubt as to the compliance of a bike entered as an Original, it can be re-classified as M on the day. For events without the capability for scrutineering compliance, make that known on entry and either allow riders to self-certify their bikes or enter all bikes as Unknown sub-class, at the Club's discretion. -- Original Component -- The use of the term 'original component', with regard to motorcycle component compliance within these rules, is to mean a component as fitted to an eligible make/model of motorcycle on leaving the factory as well as exact reproduction components manufactured to the same design which includes geometry, dimensions and materials. -- Age Reward -- At the discretion of the club, an age reward can be applied to the results. Riders aged over 50 on the day of the event, will have 1 mark removed from their score, riders over 60 will have 5 marks removed from their score and riders over 70 will have 10 marks removed from their score. After applying an age reward, if the resulting total is negative, negative scores are acceptable within the results. -- Results – The results should be displayed with the addition of the sub-class. For example: Class A 1st John Wilks (M) 2 2nd Jane Boyce (O) 7 3rd James Brown (M) 34….. ====== ORIGINAL SUB-CLASS ======= Motorcycles built with original components from a mix of eligible motorcycles can be entered within the Original sub-class. The following MUST BE original components: Frame Engine Petrol Tank Gearbox Clutch Carburettor Ignition System Hubs Forks Exhaust System Mudguards Seat Allowable modifications to ‘original components’: Footrest and pedal placement may be moved on the frame Footrests may be replaced with any compliant alternative Exhaust system may be re-routed but must remain the original material Carburettor can be replaced by Amal Mark 1 concentric carburettor Mudguard stays can be modified Any chain tensioner can be modified or added Petrol tanks can be re-manufactured in alloy to the exact same design & dimensions as the original part Any gear ratios Other conditions not listed above: Tubeless tyres are acceptable but must include an inner-tube Footrests must be sprung Levers must be ball-ended ====== MODIFIED SUB-CLASS ======= Overall compliance to be at the discretion of the Club in all events within the following guidance. As a general guide, motorcycles are allowed to modify all components with the emphasis on keeping the look of the machine close to the machine that it is being entered as. The performance of a modified machine will be significantly increased from the original specification and as such provides a significant advantage over original machinery. Motorcycles will need to have twin rear shocks, sprung footrests, ball ended levers. Disc brakes are not permitted. Hello All, First, let's try to limit the nastiness on this, it always seems to get very nasty, it is not necessary. Logic and reasoning is what is needed, not nastiness. As we all know, the horse has truly bolted on this one in terms of the 'Pre65' bikes not actually being Pre65 at all. But, this from BsaOtter (I hope you don't mind continuing this debate here) is where we are whether we like it or not: "Purely as a matter of interest; I read some of your thoughts on the question of what makes a pre-65 machine. Being new to trials I am at a loss to understand the whole debate. Please can you tell me why the classification doesn't follow the guidelines of normal, or 'road', registration for built up machines? For example; if you wish to register a 'built up machine' at the DVLA you will need a V765 and ultimately the machine will, if application is successful, be age-related-dated, to the newest major component. Straightforward. So your 1964 Bantam with a 2020 frame gets a 2020 reg and therefore cannot be classed as pre 65. Likewise with the wheels and forks. Why is it more complex than that?" ================ "John. It is not more complex, and as you say if the frame is say 2020, yes that bike is indeed twelve months old and should be classed as that year of motorcycle. Then to go and label it if for instance for sale as a Pre 65 bike to my mind is wrong, because has you say the bike or most components are NEW. And to say it is built in a similar to a bike that was built by any countries motorcycle trade before 1965 is also very wrong, unless it is an exact “replica” of a machine built with the same materials and components from that age. Even so, this machine is new and should receive a new registration. If machines are using an old registration from a bike previously wearing that number, this is wrong in most cases, has you say most components are usually new, so this machine should also be registered again with the appropriate year of manufacture. I just think the people using the term Pre65 for a modern classically styled trials machine should take a close look at what they are actually stating, and if they also looked closely at what they were referring to as Pre 65 machines, and did a bit more research into how and when the majority of machines were built, they should realise that the term is very wrong, and Classic styled machine is a better description, and if made in Britain and using the old two shock suspension on the rear of the machine, “Britshock” is a much better description for this type of machine. And should get a much more favoured response." =============== It is clear now that many of the bikes being ridden now are not Pre65 at all and very unfair to be allowed to compete against real Pre65 bikes (which a few are still being ridden albeit pushed to lower and lower routes until the rider leaves them at home), then what does the sport do? Does it separate out the Pre65 bikes from the non-Pre65 bikes, and allow pre65 bikes to compete against like-for-like bikes again (the original Specials rule, Deryk)? Or does it just continue down this road as "'classic styled bikes' that are modern but look a bit like an old bike might", and forget the old bikes, let them rust in sheds and museums, and continue the decline in the sport? I know I said this 5 years ago or whatever it was, but I would still like to see sub-class added to the existing classes which would give the sport the space to allow riders to choose a route that suits them, would allow Pre65 bikes to both compete and to compete on any route, it would allow trials organisers not to have to add new routes, and it would allow results that respect the differences in machinery. It is likely too late for any of this, but perhaps better late than never. GLA.

Yes, could not agree more. The proper bikes are the essence of Pre65, and people turn up to enjoy watching them, Lawrence AJS and Gregory HT5! We can all ride a modern pre-65 bike, that is easy and not very interesting to watch, but riding a proper bike, that is a much bigger challenge, a much better spectacle and much more enjoyable for all.

What a wonderful trial we had this year. Just perfect. 200 riders, all ages, all types of bike. Sections set out as they should be, to allow riders of proper iron a chance to make a difference against the ever more tricked out machines. Proper sounds in the air and proper smells of leather, oil, and burning petrol as bikes roared happily up every one of the sections cheered on by the masses of people straining to find the best angle to watch the action. Better still, brothers won both over 300cc sprung classes on original, unmolested, standard bikes from the period, a truly unique occurrence recording for all that you do not need to spend £12k to gain every advantage over other riders, you just need to enjoy the day with winning being just a bonus. As long as this trial exists, among very few others, the spirit of pre65 that Deryk so thankfully created can exist no matter the damage done by those openly breaking the rules that still exist. One day the original bikes will be acknowledged as such but until then we will keep calm and continue regardless. Thanks to all that made the day happen, especially the Allaways, looking forward to next year already and long may it continue. Good luck all.

@collyolly Thanks for your contribution, completely useless and abusive as always. I hope you had a nice holiday wherever you were!

Well good & you're welcome!

I know, they are weedy, unfit buggers, all of them!! Back in the day they were sinuey, athletic types, the post-war, rationed lot, none of this takeaway generation. Should really stick to darts and pottery, whinging all the time, how dare they. Why do we have to have riders at all? And do they enter the events, no, all they do is moan. All they do is complain. Awful. Oh well, not to worry, it is all water under the bridge now. Good points all. Enjoy your championships and don't worry about it, I am sure that you will beat them all!!!

Well, whatever their motivation, the ACU series events look to have been cancelled and so solving the problem for that series is moot now. The problem that apparently was never there and did not need solving for so long has finally bitten. I just hope that other clubs & events wake up and stop denying that there is an issue before they are lost too. And if they are, well, there is always fishing!!! Take care all.

That is a good question. The simple answer is why not? The sport was created to save the original bikes in the first place against bikes that make them uncompetitive. That is happening again. The theory has not changed. Fair sport breeds popularity, unfair sport kills it. There are riders who want to ride original bikes fairly, there are bikes that can be ridden and that can help the sport for everyone by keeping numbers up, entry fees down and hopefully help prevent events failing. Just by adding a sub-class, twinshocks wont be affected, nor would modifieds, so what exactly is the problem in trying to include original bikes fairly (the rules for modified bikes do not change, nor do the classes or courses)?

@on it You are going off the deep end. If you had taken any notice at all, I do still ride an original bike on the hard course. No, I am not in my 80s and I see no riders of original bikes in their 80s in the hard course in my class. As I understand it, you don't ride pre65 at all, as you say " NO I do not ride or own a pre 65 bike ". So before drawing the wrong conclusions perhaps you could start by getting your facts straight. Well, the new ACU rules/classes have obviously failed and to be fair they are terrible, most people could have pointed that out before they made it to the entry form. Overlapping classes and so on. Some classes have not even attracted any entries at all. I am sure that the committee worked hard to come up with those classes, but perhaps they should have consulted someone more experienced to help, such as the person who was part of the original creation himself. And the failure is not something that has just happened nor that will quickly be solved by any means., nor just for that series but across the entire sport. It has taken decades of deterioration (though an ACU representative was reported to have called it 'evolution') to get to this point, and it will likely take decades of work to put it right, if ever. You may attack my idea, you may attack anyone who dares to put forward evidence that actually preserving the machinery works (as it does in all other vintage sports of which pre65 is) at keeping entry numbers up, you may get visceral and abusive, ranting, putting forward things that are untrue, as others here do, and so on, but in the end, as you say, it is the sport that is suffering, when the original series that had 450 entrants who made the final standings by entering at least x different events is now down to just a few modified bikes, one or two original bikes, and a few more pre85 bikes and even that cant sustain an entry worth putting on an event for for that series, perhaps it is time to not discount all ideas about allowing machinery to be nothing like pre65 and pushing out all original bikes. To at least try? But this has been said a thousand times, nothing changes, and it all falls on deaf ears. "Closing the barn door after the horse has bolted", just means that people seem to have given in. Then, usually, in the end when the discourse becomes overly abusive, it becomes a waste of time discussing it at all and then no-one gains, not the sport, no-one. I will continue to enter, continue to get my fives, as I have done for years and enjoy the day greatly as long as the event in my area survives, and touch wood, it is. There are many other issues affecting it too, but for now it goes on. Next year the cost will go up dramatically or they will need to find another venue, neither an easy choice given it is already under pressure and has always been at the same venue. So it obviously isnt just the decline of original bikes due to the flouting of the rules, but the sport is under pressure from many other factors too. I have simply been trying to address an issue that I can help with hopefully without affecting much else. To me, Improving one issue is always a good thing even if it is not the solution to all of the problems facing the sport. Yes, it is terribly sad, my heart goes out to those clubs trying to keep the events going, which is exactly where we came in.

There is no extra bother, just add 'sub-class' to the entry form, no big deal there, and display that on the results. The scrutineering is a small issue at the events I go to given only the originals (the few) would require it and of course other means, if it brought bikes back in larger numbers (isnt that a good thing?), could be explored also to help prior to the day. So, draw the line somewhere else if you think it should be tighter than that, if you ride an original bike you are of course entitled to a different opinion (or perhaps you want a prestige sub-class). Probably best though to ask original riders (as in those that already ride to the original rules on original bikes) or draw the line where the original rules had it ie original frame, forks, engine, gearbox, hubs and ignition. The reason for including the rerouted exhaust etc is for the same reason, those were mods done in the day, as you see in the 1962 picture, mostly for practical reasons and were accepted in the original rules.

Go a page back and you can see it, AJS 16C as the one pictured at the bottom with rerouted exhaust and modified oil tank (in other words the bike has not changed since back in the day). Obviously with so few original bikes left, no. Hence the 'sub-class' concept that changes nothing for modified bikes and incidentally re scrutineering the modifieds would not need scrutineering either. Obviously some form of validation/scrutineering would be need for originals but that could be done in many ways to ease pressure on the day. Given that there are so few originals, it would be a good step to take. Doing what, changing the rules/classes again?

@trialsrfun With all due respect, there is plenty there to get the point. It is really up to the ACU now, as the body that sets up the rules and classes, to decide whether they want to put in place a better set of rules to enable any of this to happen, to have a sub-class to distinguish between bikes across all classes, whether that just be for the failing series or across the pre65 sport as a whole. There are certainly very capable and informed members of this site that have not properly been consulted, one in particular who should have been included from the outset and never excluded in the first place. We are where we are, we can only hope that the future is better thought through than the past. Anyway, I do not see that I can add much more at the moment but I will certainly keep an eye on it and keep hope for the future. Best of luck to you.

@trialsrfun That is a very good question and key to helping to sort out the loss of original bikes from pre65 trials. It is best that others, other than me, understand the answer. It is certainly key to the point that I have been trying to get across over all these years. I will add a little of my thoughts on the answer. Although it is perhaps hard to answer in terms of riding one if you havent ridden one, but a recent comment on here might come close to some understanding " Taking the Cub on a modern training course I would expect to be quite disruptive, as we'd rapidly hit the point where I'd be struggling to do stuff that everybody else was mastering. I tested that point by putting a very experienced modern and twinshock rider on the Cub, and he was extremely shocked at the difference. ". If you want to read the full comment, it is in Trials Training And Technique - classic training. On the simple, differences in terms of parts. The bike at the top, ie the upper picture in the first posting, the modern pre65, looks to have no original pre65 parts at all, certainly frame, engine, gearbox, forks, hubs and ignition are all modern or modified. To my understanding, the engine was never used for trials where the long-stroke was used, and the modern engine even looks a good deal shorter than the original short engine below. Whereas the comerfords bike, in the other posting, is all original in terms of as was ridden in 1962, so has original frame, engine, gearbox, forks, hubs and ignition, and the mods.. oil tank, rerouted exhaust, rims, seat which were obviously all done back in the day. Which is why that was chosen as the logical point to split the two types of bike, it is where the original rules stand and now should probably be where the sub-class line is drawn should the sport ever get that far.

@trialsrfun Here you go, the 16c with a comerfords example below it with the modified oil tank, slightly different frame and higher exhaust routing, someone with more knowledge of detail could probably help you understand exactly when the changes may have occured though the second picture is 1962....

@davetom @on it Sorry fellas, it was a sponsored bike, not an ex-works, so basically an unmolested bike from the period and yes, of course it is a good thing to retain these bikes as they were, and no, I want to see them ridden so I am riding it not keeping it in a shed or in a museum. And yes, when these discussions become silly, the only way to prevent further upset to those who seem to react badly, is to shut it down in any way that is possible including removing not all posts, but enough to shut it down. Smile, be happy, don't worry about it, this sport was always just a bit of fun, I'd certainly like to pass it on to my kids but I fear at this rate that will not be possible beyond by a 5k trick machine. Most adults dont know much about these bikes and if this generation fails to keep them out there, then they will be lost. It doesnt mean that much in the end, but it would be nice to try to keep original bikes in.

For context, here we are (I can hear the groans from here), the modern pre65 machinery (apparently a bike articled in Classic Dirtbike).. A very nice bike indeed but is it really a pre65 bike or is it a special? And is it really no advantage at all over the original? Does it really conform to the rules there are? Well, it is almost uncanny how the silhouette matches the original machine pictured below it (in this case the on-road AJS 16MS (G3LS) to grab the short-stroke engine presumably) that it is presumably meant to be, you almost cannot see any difference at all!!... why would anyone want to ride the trick machine, it is so obvious!! Anyway, a picture paints a thousand words. Again, it is not that trick machines should not be ridden and enjoyed just as much, they should. It is that it would be nice to acknowledge that others would also like to ride the original bikes (at least original frame, engine, gearbox, forks, hubs, ignition) and have them distinguished in the rules and/or entry.