Jump to content

ttspud

Members
  • Posts

    153
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ttspud
 
 
  1. As a quick summary of the posts on the thread, the overwhelming consensus on this board seems to be 'We do not mind losing all genuine pre-65 bikes from pre-65 trials, we just want to ride what we want, and see no problem in that. All sports progress and that, to us, is progression in this one'. Of course, I disagree as a minority here also do. To clarify the original 'ICMTR Pre-65 Trials Rules' subject of the thread for those who were not involved, the ICMTR rules have been very carefully developed, they are a best start and are subject to further tightening if necessary, with some good points put forward here, but they are absolutely unambiguous and so enforcable, scrutineering will be developed appropriately, the rules do not exclude modified bikes, they include original bikes in a fair way through sub-classes allowing them to enjoy competing on the same routes as any other bike in the trial and competing against similar original machinery. [Adding a little more] Answering my own queries from the original thread a year ago, Deryk's original rules do exist in the ACU handbook, and are good rules, but they have not been enforced since the mid 80s seemingly beginning with the Sammy Miller series and now are unusable because there are very few bikes, being entered versus existing, now that conform to them. Effectively then the sport has no rules in place and the sport cannot go back to Deryk's rules without losing many current riders and their bikes or placing many in the 'Specials' class en masse, which is obviously undesirable. And with no rules, being forced to accept such a huge disadvantage, riders of original machinery will continue to stay at home whilst their bikes are left without a competition to enter, which is undesirable also. So, what is the motivation for the ICMTR rules?; to have rules which fairly include the currently uncompetitive originals (some to none in the northern events, slowly losing them also from southern events following the same path) so that those riders continue or can come back, and to include the modifieds alongside them but in separate, still competitive, sub-classes. Any competitive sport must have sport-wide rules, currently pre65 trials effectively does not. And the only way in which that will happen is if rules can cater for both types of bike, the common modified, and the rarer original. The ICMTR rules do that very well. In terms of where the line is drawn. Should 'original' sub-class bikes be absolutely as they left the factory? No, some alterations were done then on the grounds of practicality and are still a good choice now, such as tyres, rims, handlebars, exhaust routing and levers. Added to that have been the rear shocks, front fork internals and the Amal 1 carb. That is the flavour of the sub-class not the precise rules, the published rules are precise and include the complete detail of parts allowed. The result is not exactly as it left the factory but is 'in the spirit of' pre65 bikes, and a world away from that which is accepted as a pre65 bike today in the modified sub-class. As needs repeating, the rules benefit the sport and do not exclude any current bike or any current rider. No modified bike is being further excluded or moved out of their existing class. If riders wish to ride carbon Ariels in modern sections, that is the concern of the club and that will not be affected. What will change is the protection and perhaps return of original riders and original bikes under rules which allow that to occur in clubs who recognise what has happened and wish to see a truer representation of pre-65 trials exist for riders and spectators alike. It is of course no issue for clubs that see no problem, or see too much risk, or like things as they are, they can continue to run as they see fit, and that seems to be the viewpoint of many here representing northern clubs, and so vehement and upset as many here became, I saw fit to close the discussion, and failing to do so, in the light of the earlier thread repeating the same points, it was best simply to remove the rules up for discussion, and contentious posts, from here entirely. Ask Greeves made a very salient point: "the days of 'in the spirit of the class' are well and truly gone." He is right, for the majority on this board, that is correct. But I do not agree that it is correct for all others nor for all other clubs. To save the trouble of going over all this again, and for the majority on this board who disagree, 'RIP Pre65 circa 1984'. And for anyone else who wants to get involved or help, watch this space. All the best, TTSpud
  2. Hi Suzuki & Fanatic, Yes, there will be things that are going to be awkward, to a degree. Engine internals obviously. But there are many others that are visual such as frame, hubs, carburettor, mag electrics, seat, tank, mudguards, forks and so on, that will not be. And most likely if someone has gone as far as titanium parts, they are going to have changed everything else anyway, and would already want to ride a modified. This will not affect those riding the modifieds. They will continue as before. It they want a carbon frame, so be it. Someone'll make them one and they'll be able to gain an advantage to other modified riders. Thanks, TTSpud
  3. Hi Suzuki & Fanatic, Yes, as the 2-stroke question above, it is likely that the rules could be applied in the same way to other pre-65 bikes, as the Spanish machines you suggest, though neither would be eligible to ride at the events I have ridden at which were all British, 4-stroke & pre-unit anyway. 'What is an original pre-65'? Well, the rules will make that very clear and unambiguous. 'Who would scrutinize the 40+ bikes'? Firstly, of course it is only those entered as 'Original' that would need the extra attention for that, and it is likely that only events that did scrutinize before would want to include the distinction for originals anyway. And if 40+ bikes have entered as original, that would be amazing. Thanks Guys, TTSpud
  4. Hi Trials, Good Question. I don't see why not at all, that is, at least almost certainly can be included in the rules. I shall hold back on the details until I know for sure. The events that I have ridden at are British, pre-unit, four-stroke, to my knowledge. But, the idea is really as appropriate to the bikes that you point out, it is just that they are not, again, to my knowledge, being ridden at the events that I have attended. I have noted it down, and I will keep your point in mind as something to address. Thanks, TTSpud
  5. Hi Jon, No problem at all. Wine can say the most senseless of things. And the Gasser is a different bike altogether! Good riding and Good Luck, TTSpud
  6. Hi Charlie, Will do. Thanks for the support. TTSpud
  7. Hi Jon, Yes, I looked at the Bath Classic club, it looks like a fantastic club, well done. 8 events a year and 50/60 riders across a whole range of different bikes, ages and so on. Brilliant, if I were nearer, I would certainly enjoy riding there. Your AJS looks amazing too, lots of mods and so on, great. I have no problem with others enjoying modified bikes at all. Gaining the advantage. Weedling out that inch of height or kilo in weight. It all helps to get you the winning edge. If the rest force me into it, I don't mind winning at all. Sometimes it is a bit embarrassing though. All those hot bikes and my old bone-breaker beats em all!! My only considered offering to the the God 'Win At Any Cost' is a square inch of duck tape on the good ol' steel tank to stop the hole in my trousers getting too much bigger. And still that damn wide leather seat causes all sorts of havoc!! Oh for a slim seat, light bike, easy clutch, electronic ignition, small tank, plush suspension.. ah, that's why I have the Gasser!!! I have once considered letting a bit of air out of the tyres to really gain an edge; the problem is you have to pump them back up!! No, if it is avid 'wrapped up in trying to win' that you have a problem with, you want to look at those modifying their bikes for your quarry. If no-one had begun the fanatical pursuit of that route, the sport would not need to consider originals designations in the first place. You only need to look at the bikes at the Scottish events to see what has happened. They are pre-65 bikes but only by name. You can call a train a van if you want, but it does not make it one. There are no bikes like mine there, there couldn't be, you'd bottom out on almost every rock on the course!! Not much fun to be had there. Already excluded the chance of competing on an equal footing at one event, before long it'll be all events and I am not going to let that happen. Yes, thank you, your concern is sweet!! Though, I have ridden for 30 years, if I can't do it now, I never will. Talking is not allowed? Blimey, sorry, I had no idea. I shall remember that and ride as silently as a gentle breeze. I can't speak for the bike though, it is a bit loud but to shut that up would really be a crime. Great! Of course, I ride in abject misery, a flaking wisp of a being, covered in pain, wracked with fear and wishing I was anywhere else!! In amongst that, I am able to enjoy it too, wonders will never cease. As your modified bike hops over logs, wheelies up the hills, endos around the corners, the odd splat at a step... I'll be raging up a hill, muscling through a gully and fighting my way through the mud, wonderful and as it has always been. Better though to compete fairly, and in enabling that, we will all enjoy it even more and we will protect the sport for those to come. And that is a good thing. I don't know if you have enough riders riding pre-65 originals to worry about including originals, but you will likely be able to get to the originals rules from here anyway when they are available. Thanks for your post though, good luck with the club, it looks brilliant. Keep your feet up! as the trials guys say, TTSpud
  8. Hi Fanatic & Charlie & Laird, Finally some progress. Some real insight being expressed. I am only sorry that it could not have been that way from the start. Thanks Charlie, most appreciated. I do love your ideas, but I do see this as a class to include in existing trials as a first step. I hear you all, running clubs is hard. Though you must enjoy it enough to go on with it or at least get something out of the experience even if it is just putting back in what you took out during riding years. As with riders, none of us mind losing money on things we enjoy or get something out of. I think expecting to make money from either riding in or running trials is probably hoping for the impossible or at very best, improbable. What that has to do with ranting, with me or with this topic is not clear. I may well have helped run events and so on, and know exactly what you mean. But that is not at discussion here and those issues are neither my fault nor misunderstood by me. If you boys all have issues in that area, open up a topic to discuss it or find some other way to address it. For absolute, final, certain, perfect clarity; inclusion of the new originals class will not require extra work setting the routes up, nor new events, nor new clubs. And as such, there are no good enough excuses for not including such a class at existing events. The discussion here was closed because of the belief that a problem was not acknowledged nor contributors here seemingly willing to help with those rules. And closed for no other reason. Now that it is acknowledged, by the comments above, both that there are riders expressing the same issue and that effectively there is a problem, that has changed to the extent that I will look at the rules myself and make them available when they are ready. I am glad that there are many others, including other riders, with the same viewpoint as me, even if not commenting on this topic maybe, but they are there. All you have to do is to include the new class at appropriate trials and the riders that want to ride it, if any. Any extra effort will be minimized. Modified riders will go on as before. And it is fine that you do not want to either ride in such an originals class or help sort out the rules for such a class. I can and will do that. Laird, yes, wonderful picture. Is he lining up to take on the 6 foot rock step or just spotted the wife? Yes, I will. After that, there will be no excuses left not to include originals classes at pre-65 events. As club owners, I understand that you will embrace the class with the same love you show for the sport as a whole. Originals class rules to follow during the coming year. Good riding & Good Luck, TTSpud
  9. Hi Suzuki, That does simplify things a little too much but it also does put it rather well. No-one has yet agreed with me that a problem exists. I see a huge problem but no-one else seems to. There is nowhere to go from there!! It would seem a little pointless discussing a solution to a problem that no-one seems to believe exists. I think that probably closes the topic for all intents and purposes. Mad dogs and Englishmen. You have to love them. Good riding and Good Luck, TTSpud
  10. Hi Charlie, No, just a few rules on a piece of paper is what I thought, but please, go ahead and dream away anyway!! Regards
  11. Hi Trials, Well, what do you think? To me, yes, folding footrests must be obligatory on safety grounds. I would have though no to plastic mudguards. And about the rear sprocket, I don't know. I would presume that that kind of thing would have certainly had a few options pre-65 so probably yes, but again, what is your view? Yes, thank you.
  12. Hi Fanatic, Yet these bikes, in the right hands, have beaten the top classic bike riders riding the lastest modified bike in events such as the Talmag riding the hardest route. Yes, with modern tyres and in the case of that bike non-original rear shocks. But all else standard. That does refute the point being made albeit allowing for modern tyres/shocks but all else original. These bikes are still capable of being ridden in existing events but it would be far better to have them ride on an equal basis in an originals class because most riders, probably as others here, will not accept such a large disadvantage. And that is great. Why not? But that should not mean that others with those bikes should be effectively disadvantaged and walk away when they do like riding these heavy, original bikes. Yes, that is why it is suggested to allow modern tyres in an originals class. Well yes, that is why they are so much of a disadvantage to modified bikes with high ground clearance, short frames, easy clutches, low weight and so on. Though some riders still win on them regardless, which is some feat considering many would not even attempt it let alone pull it off. I am sure that the same riders could win every year against the top modified riders but they choose to protect the bikes and ride at a large disadvantage. It would be better to support them. Yes, quite right. It must be because the bikes have changed so much and not just their tyres and shocks either. No, people have never laid down any rules, at least none that anyone can find for a proper original pre-65 class, because there is no will to do so, not because there are no riders. I think the evidence over the last few decades testifies to that. It is perhaps not that there are not the original bikes around, as Metise's uncle's bikes, just that there are no fair classes left for them. As so many things, the rules could be written quite easily, that is not really the problem. Instead, this topic will likely once again drift off into history with more effort spent in talking about it than actually doing anything constructive. It reminds me of the typical British approach of a group of blokes standing around a hole whilst one chap makes an effort to dig!! The sport has had every day since 1965 to draw up some rules, how many days is that? I don't know, but enough. It is perhaps not that the rules are not relatively easy to draw up; it is that there seems to be no will to see it done. I imagine that perhaps as the years have rolled by that the riders of the modified classes have risen to the top due to the advantage those bikes provide and other voices have been increasingly lost. Maybe not willing to give up the advantage that the modified bikes provides, the situation has become less and less important until arriving at the sport today where there are no original pre65 in the Scottish. There is no single central point to have a set of rules. That is not the best environment in which to attract new riders who might very well drag out a good, but original, AJS out of the shed and have a go. The sport simply does not cater for that any more as it does not cater for existing riders on original bikes either. And there are, though they are perhaps a rarer breed today, those who are willing to adhere to an original pre-65 class still and there are still the bikes around to make that happen. Perhaps the sport would be better with both modifieds and pre-65 bikes in it? But that requires voices to speak up and not be allowed to be drowned out by those who only seem to want to look the other way. Of course, the whole point is not to get bogged down in the above, not to look back, but to focus on introducing a solution if there are enough who still want to. That's maybe a very difficult ask given the circumstances. Perhaps better to try within existing events. I think that there is every point in supporting original pre-65 trials bikes in pre-65 trials for many reasons. Well, yes, that is a bit of an awkward position to be in. Not seeing the point in riding the bikes and not seeing the point in not riding the bikes. Anyway, thanks for the post, it was most revealing.
  13. Hi Metise, Yes, thanks, that is a very appropriate anecdotal tale. Exactly the symptom that is being talked about, losing riders that have good machinary that is not being catered for. I bet that you would enjoy riding it if you tried and I promise you that such a bike as mine has won the Talmag Trophy proper beating people like Len Hutty who ride machines that truthfully have a huge advantage over it, more than once and recently. But, as I say, that is really with very talented riders who, sadly, do not get recognised as such because it is only those that ride or closely follow the sport who realise quite how much of a disadvantage such riders are being forced to accept. Though, as I, if you do not ride often or perhaps do not fancy that level of risk, then there is the easy route, which really is easy unless one is a lot older than I. No, the Talmag is quite easy, even for me. On wet days though, as it was this year, it is harder. Well, original bikes are very sought after because they are becoming so rare. Modified bikes are fine, but what are they? Some modified bikes that I have seen do not even have a proper make, they just don't have any integrity at all. Oh dear. Perhaps I should badge up my gasser with a fine Ariel stamp instead!! No, I have other bikes. But the AJS should be ridden otherwise it will just get left and end up rotting away. These older bikes are far better in the events being ridden than not. And the spectators do like seeing them even if some in the sport do not. Thanks for your post, you anecdotes exactly describe the issue in the sport. You are of the age that could ride but you think that the Talmag is too hard. Your uncle gave up years ago whilst others of his age continue onwards, maybe he was put off by the modified bikes a long time ago, who knows. But you should be riding it, only I can't tell you that there is a course for the bike to ride in!! Bit of an issue really. Unless you are happy to ride in a competitive event without competing, not too much fun. Probably not then!! And that is the problem with ignoring this issue in a nutshell!!
  14. Hi Stan, I do hope so. I have been so busy, I just haven't had a chance to do so many things, Owls being one of them. I think I managed one trial only last year or perhaps 1 1/2! It is a complete aside but I do have a very very important job to finish (I almost wish it wasn't so) outside trials and time really is weighing on it. I do feel a little guilty even taking the time to do this over these two days, I probably should not have. But I do feel that the sport is making a mistake here in ignoring views such as mine, as the sport has done for so long, but things are perhaps easier in hindsight. And yes, thank you, I shall be back to Owls as soon as I can get time out to play. i should make more time I suppose! I also meant to go see james a few months back and have a practice, but of all things my car's head gasket failed, and so back to square one!! Ah, ok!! That answers that! Then, to Charlie, yes, my vote would be of course!! My AJS is beautiful. It was a works bike ridden my Mick Waller, I think relatively locally in Kent (Sidcup??), not sure. And it truthfully does sound incredible. Anyway, to me, there is more to the bike than a modified frame, clutch, hubs, tank, seat etc etc, it is a little piece of history that I am very happy to ride and let others enjoy, but am not happy to destroy by taking away its spirit through modification. My gain by winning by any means by modifying such a bike is by no means makes up for losing it to all future riders for ever more. It is just such a tragedy that the bike is effectively being pushed aside when it is genuinely a joy to ride. I have no issue with others wanting to ride modified bikes, and do not see why originals cannot also be catered for. But there we are.
  15. Hi Woody, No, I really am not missing the point at all. And no, there a no trials that put these bikes on an equal footing because those rules do not exist. You have not come up with any because there are none. I can be no plainer. With regard to originals, it is perhaps not that the riders do not want to ride; it is perhaps more that the sport is not supporting those bikes fairly. Or do you really think that it is reasonable to ignore the difference in the performance of an original bike to a modified bike entirely? Of course not, and if the sport cannot deal with the issue then it has let the riders down. There has never been an original pre-65 class in any trial that you can come up with, past or present, and that should tell you all you need to know. When did the sport make sure it was catering for original pre-65 bikes and their riders? Why is it a surprise that there are fewer riders on original bikes today when the situation has been ignored for at least a decade? It is not riders that were leaving the sport, it is, if anything that the sport has failed to cater for those riders. Just saying now that look there are so few young riders but it is not our fault, is still missing the point. You don't seem able to see that. Winning at all costs is absolutely fine for those that think that way. Introducing a class for originals simply caters for other riders who do not and do wish to preserve the bikes. Again, you may disagree, but without pre-65 bikes, what sport do you really have? Why not just enter the modern trials where the modifications are amazing? But, again, it is fine to keep the modifieds going but not at the cost of all of the original bikes and possibly the sport too. If that is true, don't you want to see the sport support my viewpoint and include riders such as myself rather than losing them? I do find the idea that 'noting can be done' or 'nothing needs to be done' incredible when I read such things. It is like all walking off a cliff because everyone forgot to turn around. No, and I am sure many original riders feel the same way. Who would want to ride in a trial that effectively excludes the bike you ride? Young guys willing to take this on, and they are not catered for? Wow. That is a terrible strategy for a sport in professed decline. Perhaps it would be better to try to gain a wider perspective and see what can be done. If the sport has sat back for 30 years, made no attempt to tackle the issue of losing original bikes in the face of ignoring the vast advantage that modifieds now have and is now in decline, perhaps it might be time not to ignore it?
  16. Hi Charlie, Thanks, no, I do not know an awful lot about how these trials are organized and so on. My family has been involved in trials for a long time and I just tend to go to whatever comes up, with not too much thought beyond that. That said, now I check how old I have become, I have ridden for 3 decades, and that has been a bit of a shock! Where did the years go??! Yes, quite. One of the reasons for allowing better suspension internals (or perhaps even better shocks if that were what was wanted) was to save on the knees. I am possibly half the age of some of my fellow competitors but even my knees are not ideal!! So I can quite imagine that others might prefer an originals class but allowing for slightly plusher shock internals or whatever. From what I gather, it is very common to make that modification and many of the 'originals' bikes may already be like that. This is for you to have your say. What do you think? Which way would you prefer it to be? This is not going to extend to allowing many modifications, but I can see that a few pragmatic ones might be a very good thing, but only if that was the majority view. For me, I would ride happily either way. That is true. But I have met a couple of thirty somethings who would like to get into the sport. That would help. I certainly have no idea which class because the modified bikes are so expensive and the original ones are hard to get hold of. Anyway, there is hope! Ok, do you mean 3 routes instead of two then? Taking the Talmag as an example, I see many bikes in exactly the trim we are talking about (including altered tyres and suspension) doing very well on both courses. And even in the last three years, one rider won on such a bike beating all of the best riders across the country riding very modified bikes. Of course that exceptional ride for that exceptional reason is never pointed out because everyone just assumes that top riders only ride highly modified bikes, but it is not true. Sorry, getting back to what you said. Do you think that the easy course for the Talmag could not accomodate riders pulling these bikes out of the shed? I did ride alongside a Dutch chap who had done exactly that, was in a pair of jeans and shoes, had entered the harder course on a truly original bike and obviously found it very difficult indeed!! I even read topics on this subject where those, I think from NZ, could see the way that the sport in the UK has developed, but this poor chap from Holland didn't know! Perhaps it is best to have a very very easy starter course then for people to get back into these bikes on. Perhaps it would suffice to be sections outside the main course, perhaps a few, just to get them ready to move onto the two main routes. Perhaps it need not be run with so many sections and could be run in a slightly easier way. Perhaps it could truly allow those riders to get back into the sport. It would require some extra observers, which is always cited as the big problem, but perhaps there are some ideas that might help with that being as the results for that course would only be very social indeed. Well yes, of course the ACU who deal with the annual insurance and such like. The AMCA, that also rings a bell, but I couldn't tell you much more. Do you mean that it would be best just to create the class, test it, and if it catches on, great? Well, there you go, what do you think? If you allow it, others will have that too. To me, yes, that is absolutely fine given that I think that shock internals would probably be an allowable alteration both given the elderly knee thing as well as the fact that those bits do suffer wear and tear as the years go on. The AJS is always a little dodgy both front and back, but so what, as long as it is no different to the other bikes within the same rules, no problem. Edit!: I just looked up what jampots were! I think mine might still be the 'jampots'. The spring is concealed, is that what you mean? Sorry, I don't mean to backtrack, I just thought that you were talking about internal parts, I don't know why. Do the Girling ones have the springs open as later bikes? For me, I would prefer the original externals to be used. But if it is the case that the majority believe otherwise, then so be it. Ah, damn, I remember all the nice things anyone ever said to me going back to when I was tiny. That may well be added to my memory's list. And I do return the compliment fully. Best regards too.
  17. Hi Woody, I am so pleased that you replied, I was hoping that you would since your post was pivotal in this topic being started. Let's get this out of the way first. That is a natural reaction due to my approach and you not knowing me. But yes, to answer your concern, I am very serious about it. And no, I do not find this stuff fun. In truth, I find it a little bit sad that the sport has arrived at this point where the mantra seems to be bending non-existent rules to win at any cost. Surely there is room for keeping original bikes alive in a competitive sense. My guess is that there is room and the riders to go with it, if a class catering for originals were to exist. No, I am not an incredibly serious trials rider but I do enjoy the sport and I do enjoy the sound and feel of the original bikes. More modern bikes are great too, but different, and to my mind no better. I have ridden for 30 years or more but I have never taken it particularly seriously. That said, things could be a lot more enjoyable, and the gap between modified bikes and originals has got to levels, as is universally acknowledged, where expecting riders to compete on equal terms with either bike is possibly causing riders to move away from the sport. And that is bad for the sport. I may of course be wrong and no-one would ride original bikes. But they do now and i cannot see how catering for them is going to make them less attracted to the sport. In my mind, the integrity of the sport is important. Actually more important than anything else in maintaining interest in it. I may of course be wrong, but that is what I would suggest. On the other hand, the issue could be dealt with, as always, given the will to do so. Obviously some may have a vested interest in not wanting to see that change. But others will want change. And that is what is up for discussion, whether an originals class is the right approach, whether it is possible, how would it realistically be introduced and so on. Well, no, I have never known that for certain and that was the point, to find out for certain. You have filled in that gap, so thank you. I suspect though allowing non-original frames, hubs, ignition and so on, or would I be wrong in saying that? Do you have any links to their rules? Again, this is to be discussed. We had basically arrived at two votes for no change in anything including tyres and suspension, though those may not be riders wishing to ride in an originals class, so how genuine those answers are is difficult to gauge. I am sure a line can be drawn. Certainly the class requires the original frame, engine, hubs, brakes, clutch, ignition, seat, tank, kickstart, mudguards as a starting point. Unless there are objections on pragmatic rather than performance grounds. As for tyres/suspension, those things are up for discussion, again on pragmatic grounds. I would have thought that the idea would be to keep the bikes to the spec they left the factory in including the original works bikes. That would be in the spirit of the original bikes. Of course modifications would be made, as long as they were original pre-65 modifications, then fine. As already discussed, there will be a few pragmatic (and a few safety) alterations to be potentially allowed. I would have thought that even if a few things slip through, that that is a far less significant problem than that of ignoring the gulf in performance between that original and the highly modified bikes of today. Perhaps an originals class is the lesser of two evils. Yes, this is something that has been brought up and acknowledge from the start. I just don't know. To my eye it is very easy to sport a highly modified bike and that gets ever harder as the bike gets more original. Do you know anyone that might be able to shed some light on that issue? Again, this is another question for discussion. If the original GOV132 turns up from pre-65, great, it is eligible. If replicas built last year do, then that is a question for debate. Possibly. Yes, of course. I will always enjoy it but I would enjoy it more if I were able to compete on equal terms and not have to hugely modify an original bike in order to do it. You are the first person to get to this. And this may well be the most difficult thing. Do you award modifieds and not standard bikes if you have two classes? Should it be the pre-65 bikes that are awarded? Or do you simply award both? That, to me, is likely to be one of the big issues for those riding modified bikes when contemplating a class riding the same route, with the same size engine, make and model, only in original pre-65 spec. As you say, it is the human nature of some to focus on gaining an advantage at all costs. I tend to think a little wider than that and consider the impact that such an attitude might be having on the sport itself. In so many warps of life, i see the same exact difference in attitude, and it is no surprise to me to find it with pre-65 trials in just the same way. For me, there are more important things than winning. I enjoy competing. I am very happy when I win. But winning is not more important than the sport itself, at least that is how I would see it. If the sport can include more riders and preserve the bike and so sport for future riders, then I cannot see that as a bad thing to attempt to introduce. Thanks for you post though. I do hope you will help more.
  18. Hi Micky, I am sorry, perhaps I did not explain them very well. I will try again. You are the first person that has said 'I don't object to a class in principle', that is great. It is a start. A first step. I have asked that question to others and yours was the first answer and a good answer at that. Brilliant. I am not at all worried that you have no interest in riding in an original pre-65 class, that is your choice. I mean as F1 has the FIA to regulate the rules. As the FA regulates the Premier League. As the LTA regulates tennis. These organizations regulate the rules in a central way so that all entrants are clear on what the rules are. That might be a good thing for pre-65 as well, I just do not know whether it does exist or not, hence my questions. If it does exist, then please let me know who that organization is or better where those existing rules can be found. If not, then that is a whole different issue. Yes, it could be left to each club to have their own rules, as might be the way now. But that might not be ideal. If the same idea were applied in football, you might turn up at an away game only to find out that the club you were visiting had chosen 100 players a side and you only had 11. You would not win that match and they would not much enjoy winning on such advantaged terms. Better for all that everyone uses the same rules. As you say, people might have to travel a fair way to ride in such events and it would be quite unfair if they have to adjust their bike for a different set of rules at each trial. And that is possibly why the rules are so lenient at such events for the modified bikes, because organizers do not want to turn people away but have no central rules to guide what is acceptable at all pre-65 trials. So, the question remains and as you are so involved in the sport, I considered that you would know that answer. Is there a corresponding association or organization that regulates pre-65 trials or are the rules simply down to each club to decide?
  19. Hi Micky, Fantastic, I am very pleased. You are the first person that has said that or come close to saying it, and that is great. Do you know who regulates or has any power over the rules of pre-65? Is there such an organization in existence?
  20. Hi Micky, That is funny, my bike is a 1960, so right in the middle. I do not have the knowledge to know how different a 1955 AJS is to a 1964 AJS, but to me it does not matter. They will both have steel frames, wide seats, heavy this and that, and so on. I doubt the difference in those particular two bikes matters that much. I certainly would not worry about the 64 bike being a little better than my 60. You could also say that a 500 is more competent than a 350 and yes, it is. But again, they are original pre-65 bikes so that is fine. Or you could say that an Ariel HT5 is easier to ride than some of the other bikes, but they are both original pre-65, so that is fine. The idea here is not to go to the other extreme and have a class for one make, one model in one year. The idea is to introduce a class so that original pre-65 bikes may compete on equal terms without having (as Charlie described so well) to deal with the gulf that now exists between original and modified bikes. That is not to say that it needs any new routes or easier routes. Just that the vast difference should be acknowledged and catered for so that all riders can enjoy the machinery that they enjoy maintaining. And that is the point. A new originals class might encourage people to compete on these bikes rather than being putting them off for the little extra scrutineering effort that it might take to run. If you look at modern trials, there are large differences in the design of bikes, but very little in the weight, turning circle, power and so on. I am sure that the same differences inside a class will always exist given a little common sense on how a class is defined. If a class is not defined, or so loosely designed to be irrelevant, and that sport is based on bikes from a long gone era, of course you will get people who try to gain an advantage. As is happening every year. This year it might be clutches, next year the frame, then the engine, then the brakes.. and so on. And what are you left with? A very easy bike to ride. Is that better? That is a debatable point. There will be others who would prefer to ride originals. If there are no objections, where is the issue? If no riders wish to ride as an original, fair enough. I certainly would and i am certain that I am not alone. Perhaps give them the chance. I understand that you are very into the modified bikes. Would you consider riding in an originals class at all? Even if not, do you have any objection to there being an originals pre-65 class in principle accepting that you will never get all bikes the same but that a set of originals rules could be created in order to have that class exist?
  21. Hi Suzuki, Do you own an original bike? I do and I can say that it is beautiful to ride and I have also ridden many others. Much comes down to how they are maintained. And I think it is very much on the contrary, there may well be enough riders who would like to ride an original bike, given the rules being in place, rather than having to modify them to keep up or for a number of other reasons. Right now no-one knows because that class has never existed. You may be right, it may be relatively few, but it may also be enough or perhaps even a lot. Who knows.
  22. Hi Charlie, Well, they possibly spend a minute or two per bike. They check the spokes, the general condition, the brakes, the wheel bearings and so on. You'd have to ask them exactly what they check. How much extra effort would it be to pick out a modified bike running in the originals class? that would be interesting to know to. Well, perhaps not unmodified in any way, that is up for debate. The tyres and suspension are up for debate as possible alterations. But yes, original frame, engine, clutch, seat, ignition, tank and so on, so you would have a properly heavy, proper pre-65 bike. No, that is absolutely untrue for the trials that I have attended. There are original bikes as described in both routes already. And as I said earlier, some of those originals riders would prefer a course harder than the hard course is now. The routes would not need altering, at least in the trials that I have ridden in. No, there would be no change in the amount of routes. Now you are beginning to grasp where my bike is. It gives away 40kg, 4 inches in ground clearance, length, turning circle, clutch action, clutch weight, clutch usage, delay in ignition, lack of suspension travel, lack of speed.. and so on. To believe that an original can compete on equal terms with the latest modified bikes is unrealistic, and will cause riders either not to ride, to ride just for fun (which is how it has been for a long time, and is unfair) or to modify their bike. A better solution would be to simply have two classes. If I blindfolded you, you would likely be able to pick out a highly modified bike just by sitting on it for 20 seconds, feeling the weight, suspension, clutch and so on. Without a blindfold, it is even easier. So, yes, I am well aware of how much of a disadvantage an original bike is compared to a modified one of today!! As are you!! In fact, it is now no big thing to win on a modified bike over an original bike, it is very easy and so there really is little point in mixing the two. To win on an original bike against a modified one is near impossible nowadays, but has happened but only by the absolute top originals riders. However, it is not something that you ought to ask any rider to have to cope with. Better to let both classes ride in classes of their own. So, no you do not need to add a route or to change the routes. Hard and easy will cater for all as it does now. As long as you don't need a new route, and not much scrutineering overhead, I don't see the problem. Again, no. There will be no extra routes. No extra observers. If only ten bikes qualify for that class out of 200+, so be it. But I think there would be more. If there were no extra routes, no change in the severity of the existing routes, no extra observers, little scrutineering overhead, and let's say 25 riders in the class, would you accept the introduction of an original pre-65 class in principle? Or is there another issue as to why not?
  23. Hi TrialsRFun, I accept that running a trial can be tough, of course, but your point is only relevant if there is to be significant extra overhead from having an original pre-65 class. So far, there might be some extra competence needed during scrutineering, but not too much. Other than that, what extra overhead do you foresee? For context, would you personally enter an original pre-65 class, or would you enter the modified class? Perhaps the issue here is that many people are worried about the effects on the modified class? To me, that is no problem. No-one is suggesting that modified bikes should be affected. On the contrary, modified bikes can continue on the course they are on without change. Or do you simply believe that it is too difficult to specify what the rules for an original pre-65 class should be? Do you have any objection to an original pre-65 class in principle, given acceptable overhead?
  24. Hi Charlie, Yes, agreed. it is likely that this is applicable to 4-stroke clubs only, at least in the beginning. Yes, that is a problem but possibly unrelated to this. Perhaps improving the rules might help engage new riders and improve that situation also. But it would need the creation of new rules as well as finding out who the appropriate regulatory body to make them official is. Is there such an official regulatory body for pre-65 trials? Or is it left to each club to decide individually? Well, it seems that it is harder to create a totally new event than to support an existing one, made harder still if it is for a new class. It is possible that you are right, but I do not know who would wish to tackle such a thing and that would would not solve the original issue in the existing trials any case. I don't think that that is true because all of the 'chaff' can still compete in its own class under existing rules. The original bikes can then compete happily, be preserved for new riders and future riders. It is surely best to cater for both types of bike. The overhead at existing events, given a set of rules, may not be much at all. And if that brings in new riders over the following years, then that is a good thing. I have never been of the mind that things cannot be done. However, if something has been given a good chance and has not been successful, fair enough. I do not believe that an original class has ever been attempted before. If you know of an event that has run an original pre-65 class, can you direct me to it? It might be interesting to see how it was approached and how successful it was.
  25. Hi Charlie, Yes, it looks like you had a very successful event on your hands. The idea here is to address current events more than creating any new events. The issue is with existing trials and how that can be addressed within those events rather than solving the issue by creating new events, which, as you say, are very difficult to make succeed. Do you have any objections to the introduction of an original pre-65 class?
 
×
  • Create New...