Jump to content

john collins

Members
  • Content Count

    366
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About john collins

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Previous Fields

  • Bike
    bultaco

Recent Profile Visitors

6,526 profile views
  1. Bloody hell guys ! The only thing I hope I have definitely achieved is that it is very apparent that there are different views If you look back at my very first email - I asked if someone could co-ordinate the views on various classes and give us a list or starting point. You will note I put " good luck with that " , I was not being sarcastic ( well perhaps I was a bit) but many years of experience has shown how difficult it is One think I hope some of you may understand ( some never will as their knowledge of ho it all works is deficient to say least) is that an ACU C/tee of 8 have always struggled to sort all this, just as many of you are obvious now doing The posts arrive at no conclusion - and I suggest it was unfair at outset of those to slag us off, when it is now obvious that there will never be agreement- we just have to try things , and that does not always work, hence the attempt to review A few other points - I get mightily peed off with the constant reference to te ACU should do this or that. Some of you may believe it is some huge corporate body or something - it is not, it is guys , trying to do their best across board. Any of you can apply to join and do your bit just as the 8 do We do not get paid , we give up a days work to attend meetings and spend many many hours a week trawling through emails and problems and disputes and most importantly trying to ensure that the sport carries on with all the outside pressure it faces - so no more slagging off please , constructive comments, fine, constructive criticism fine , but remember the ACU is us - all of us. Anyone in a Club/ Centre, rider or organiser. The clue is in the last letter Union ( all of us) Now a few points to get back to real world - some have made very good comments on some of these The organisers have a whole load of things to do as anyone who has organised knows. I have already covered this. They are very unlikely to be able to set up some sort of MOT facility and check all the eligibility that some would like a la Classic TT - it just ain't going to happen Equally , there is very little chance of the machine examiner being to accurately establish what is 62, 63, 64 , 65 and so on - these bods are not not out there. They are at home writing about it So, of course there can be some eligibility factors . In past Twinshocks, drum brakes, carb, for diameter have ben used in past. But they will be limited UNLESS AN EXPERT OE EXPERT CAN BE FOUND TO GO AROUND ALL ROUNDS _ AND CHECK This is exactly what is SUPPOSED to happen at thus years Vintage ISDE in Spain . There is a strict criteria format and in principle there will be " Expert checkers" and if machines are not eligible, it is back in van and head for border ( we will see if that works?) As far as we are concerned I am far from sure that in then real world riders actually want that , but even if they do how can it be achieved ? Next, a few have probably hit nail on head and stated that if sections are correct, and suitable for classes whatever they may be, the problem is reduced. Absolutely spot on BUT - Organisers vary and always will. No-one sets out to cock it up, but is does occasionally happen What do we do then - sack them ? Not possible they are volunteers in first place doing it for love of sport Not give them a round again - possible, but that results in extremely reduced events and please remember that always always, for everyone who thinks a round that someone things was too hard, too tight, too long, too short, there will be others thinking it too easy, not tight enough, too short etc It is not an exact science From what I have seen and read in surveys ( and they were a bit like I have just said - alternate views mostly) Some want a return to the British Bike era - ie original concept and leave modern twinshocks go elsewhere Some want to retain Twinshocks and have classes for them Some one all mixed in and allow course sections to sort out Some want harder sections for better riders Some want strict machine eligibility rules Some want little or no eligibilty rules - "ride what you brung" Some want classes divided up according to age of riders rather than machines Some want all Off road Some want all On road Many want a mixture So it goes on - thanks for efforts ( I do mean that ) C/tee will now try to start with an fresh piece of paper and come up with something BUT we will still need organisers I have a return trip to Bradford now to try to discuss next years World Trial with FIM representatives - should be easy after this !!
  2. Thanks for posts All will be read and added in to previous surveys , comments, etc before classes are finalised I do know form experience that there is one big problem with some of classes suggested, which in themselves sound ok and that is te policing of it Someone said it is easy to tell if a bike is such and such ? I am not so sure. Certainly there are classic experts out there who know all this and can tell year/ modifications and so on. Unfortunately these people will not be at event ( unless someone wishes to volunteer ? serous question - ) Organisers rarely have the time or inclination, they have much to do on a morning and machine examiner often is just that - checking normal things and not necessarily an expert into the exact dimensions of a frame etc. Fork diameter is easier and i think we will certainly re-instate this I have to say in past, whatever rules we made, ie Pre this or that or certain forks or carbs , many seem to have taken a great delight in circumnavigating the rules, and I am not sure why that should be Our aim is not to provide classes to give some an excuse to get around them ( cheat could be another word for it ?) People have modified bikes, and always will but there has to be a degree of responsibility and sportsmanship surely? Anyway, thanks for replies, as stated they will all be read. I am not sure if we can come up with some sort of consensus as even when you read these posts there is great variation We will study again before making a decision.
  3. Hi guys I think it can be seen the diversity of views re classes etc This has really always been the problem. many views and while almost all are valid, it is easy to get into a mess Just a few things that we as T & E have to consider There is a huge difference in last few years with running events. Not least the MSA Approval required if part of event goes on road , the S33 Local Authority approval even for off road parts. The bureaucracy - and yes ACU are responsible for much of it ( good topic for another post ! as that is far from easy to digest) I have been Clerk of Course for a whole range of event ranging from the old Sebac series classic type events to British Championships and World Championships . Across the range, therefore a club that puts on event - any events has a lot to do and a lot of responsibility to take. Far more than ever before Therefore, they require a good entry to make an event both viable and justify the work. Most do not do it to make money but work on a break even situation across the season The problem has been that while some classes have diminished for all sorts of reasons, in order to maintain viability - and for T & E to get organisers who wish to run a Champ event, there has undoubtedly been an influx of more and more classes and sometimes Specials ( and that word in itself can be used in many more classes than just that titled class?) If you ride one of these .eg Spanish Twinshock - one is happy If you ride a more standard British Bike, it is very easy to feel the sections etc are marked to suit them and the pleasure can go out f it all and hence participation of the older bikes I am quite attracted to the idea of returning to a more British Bike series = but will it get entries and will organisers come forward? I can only presume that the authors of many of these posts are hard working members of their own clubs like T & E members are. Can we togeteht persuade our Clubs to apply for a round It is chicken and egg situation. If we revert more to original concepts, entries may flood in, but if they do not at least at initial stages organisers are might peed off and not surprisingly those from classes then excluded soon say - what did you expect when you took our classes away ? A conundrum ? Which is why I initially asked for classes that people want There are some good responses, but they do intend to be from a limited number of contributors We will continue reading throughout the day and then try to collate the view with thos already sent in
  4. Thank you for two positive posts. I will take on board as will other T & E members Things are never quite as simple, as from our point of view we have to have organisers and that is our first remit i.e to invite applications. I will not expand at moment as hopefully there will be other views, but none will be ignored
  5. Guys There seems to be more interest in analysis , surveys and the like and how it all went wrong in past, and ACU should allow someone else to do it – fine – get on with it. if you are volunteering send me a name and address and we will involve you . What I have not seen is many positive suggestions about future , and many realistic comments about how it all needs to work Consultation to end of year ? Sounds great put unrealistic . Perhaps we need to consider how things actually work: This may be good as it should certainly be known regardless of which type of event Clubs /Centres have to apply for rounds. It does not matter if they are SM or Solo British Championship or anything else. In order to do this, they need some idea of format etc. Which is where we are at present – actually doing it. Many clubs now no longer meet on a weekly basis, often perhaps a couple of time or even once a month Clubs and Centres require a their calendars fixed by about first week in Nov ( Many meet on Remembrance Sunday for final sort but many say that is too late) It is not just about various Championships for them, they obviously put these in first, but then have to fit in all normal Centre & Club events around them. This is important for land, observers and so on. They want Centre Calendars to go to printers and so on and so forth. They want them compiled as early as possible So they want it finalised start Nov if possible ( often it is not) When applications for all the Championships are sent in , inevitably there are clashes and the they have to be resolved. Clubs are re-contacted, but of course people are in work, have to consult with others in their club at next meeting and so on. Once applications are in it will probably take about 4 weeks to get it all fixed – and that is being extremely optimistic. It is easy to think that a SM round or anything else will not be affected by something which is completely different to it – i.e Keedewell British Championship , or even UK World round – but that is not correct. Often Club members who actually do work, observe and ride in other events some completely different types, may not be available on a certain date so club that need them cannot clash with events which at first glance can seem to be no problem. This is often case in my own club. It is easy to think these events just happen by magic – they do not. All that is fact – accept it or not , but it is. This means that first applications really need to be back from organisers by end of Sept. This means we are actually already on late side , as they are not sent out yet so consultation to end of year is not going to happen. It is going to be days Ah I hear you ask, why not start sooner ? Many reasons but not least as at present we still await FIM World Trial dates, FIM Europe Trials dates and these in turn affect RT Keedweel Champ, Ladies & Girls Champ, & Youth Champ. Some ( who probably know very little about how events actually happen may think that is not important – as I have explained it is. The reason I offered you the chance to put forward view was that someone had prematurely put on TC a suggested format that was not confirmed, so rather than have huge debate about that I suggested those with some definite views on how it should be for 2017 put them down. It does seem however many are more interested in talking the talk rather than suggesting anything That is fine, if you just want the excuse of not contributing just keep impressing people with your knowledge of past , and how you would have done it differently. I do not accept that anyone presently involved cannot do this – if they want to. I too rode Sammy Miler round for many years, and at any given time I am sure I would have had an opinion of what classes etc there should be. Who should be catered for ? We have this discussion in our club almost every week If you need time to think about it, or are put out as you did not do a survey or are more interested on analysis of past, where it went wrong then fine , leave it alone. There are about 120 riders who have scored points in the various classes in 2016 , and we could just leave these alone, and I could be down pub. However, as I said earlier those who wish to by Monday suggest the classes they would like to see , the opportunity is there. Up to you if you wish to take it. I have written this tonight, you can do same and also Sunday and Monday So, for those interested in positives rather than negatives. Your starter for 10 1) There will be no Sammy Miller series in 2017 2) There will be an ACU Classic series subject to organisers and dates being sorted within a week or two) 3) There will be an opportunity for some “ Off road applications” - max number of laps and min distance 4) The format will be hopefully be sent out to potential organisers within days What type of carb, wheels, hubs, frames and so on are not at present the burning issues – these can come later and yes there can if you like be more consultation At present what is needs is : 5) What Classes & How many routes ? Respond on point 5 if you wish , that is starting point but by Monday afternoon John Collins
  6. Guys This all very interesting, but I am afraid is also all very premature, so I need to put record straight . There was a survey carried out – I believe it was sent out to those who are riding series That is important. If you are not riding or involved the series, it may interesting to express your opinions, but that is what they are, opinions , to which of course you are entitled, but please do not expect them to have more validity than those taking part. However, like lots of surveys there are varying views , and often they reflect what a particular person feels, which may be valid, but next person has totally different take on topic. Even worse , there can be a tendency when a view does not come to fruition that those who genuinely completed survey, feel slighted or ignored . This is problem with such things “ Everyone wants a certain set of rules as long as it is theirs” Ok That is the history Now. Surveys have been read. Some of the views you express here will also be read at least WHOEVER PUBLISHED THE PROPOSALS WAS INCORRECT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN FINALISED. THEY ARE WORK IN PROGRESS I SUSPECT THERE MAY WELL BE SEVERAL CHANGES, THE FINAL FORMAT WILL BE ANNOUNCED IN DUE COURSE. IT IS VERY EASY ON WEB SIGHTS AND Fu ….. BOOK to say how things should or should not be done I have a suggestion which is better than any survey if you are serious in your quest to help ONE PERSON - and ONE only on this site ( preferably someone who rides in SM series ) acts like a co-ordinator. That person wants to be announced on this TC forum . That person needs to volunteer and start ball rolling – all others respond to their post with suggestions Put together all the various views expressed over next few days – say until Monday ( good luck with that!) and see if a conclusion about classes and routes and machines can be formulated Once that is done - I 100% promise you that T & E will give very very serious consideration to that ONE proposal which has been drawn together from all your various TC views Email it to me or just publish on a post ( I will check for it on Monday) So – Step 1 - A volunteer on TC to collate all the views. By all means discuss/ debate/argue Step 2 - By Monday a final draft of the views collated into I set of regulations posted Step 3 - Those collated views to be put forward as ONE proposal from TC posters to be considered with equal validity to all proposals so far Over to you all John Collins T & E Chairman
  7. As many will know I used to spend a huge amount of time posting on TC and generally it was time well spent as I felt it was good to inform people of actual facts, yes argue a few points and hopefully have serious debate There were two things that have curtailed this, firstly lack of time due to the many hours spent each day/evening working on ACU Trials and Enduro issues as do other C/tee members, but that is only one thing The real killer for me however was when a few posters just seem to take delight in posting any comment that enters their head without any thought, justification or accuracy or truth as long as they can knock ACU. Rarely do they provide information of what they actually " do" for our sport. Telecat has given about the best example of this when he claims without knowledge or substance that there is no point going to an ACU meeting as no-one listens and nothing changes Leaving aside the fact that my and other C/tee members unpaid time is as valuable as his, but we are prepared to spend it trying to do something rather than just post silly comments, I would suspect that what he actually means is: " I once had an idea / view point, but because not everyone thought it was as brilliant as I thought , I have arrived at the conclusion that there is no point having another thought as no-one will listen/ action in any meeting" However, Telecat is of course entitled to his opinion, but before he throws such comment about is he prepared to back it up If he is prepared to pledge £1 to Cancer Research for every instance I can provide where someone in an ACU Forum or meeting or email/letter has made a suggestion which has then been considered and then implemented - and he can if he wishes confine himself to BC - to save some money or go wider if his pockets are deep. I will of course provide suggestion made by not only organisers but also BC riders and others It will take me time , I will forego my night in the local But as we say down here - " Put up or shut Up" John Collins
  8. Hi - teewoyonesevenfoyve You have received some very god advice on here from people who seem to know what they are talking abot In particular I thin k it was a good suggestion to go and visit a trial to get a few of what is involved Re Trials Registration - If you feel more comfortable getting things sorted out on an individual basis, rather than just trying to make head or tail of a form that may not cater for your needs - just phone ACU Licence Dept again - give my name and ask them to take your full contact details and get them to contact me and I will arrange for someone with exact knowledge to contact you and guide you through
  9. Charlie Prescott: Yes - I tend to agree with you. And we intend to look across all classes. BUT - the problem is ( and always seems to have been) trying to cater for all in what was initially a Classic or actually PRE 65 BRITISH series. As stated clearly above we intend to review the whole think toward the end of 2015 , and those with definite views on what classes should be now have plenty of chance to post on this site and see if they can get some agreement, and we can take note However - please remember while I am Chairman of T & E , I am one voice and we are a total of 8 and these must all have a say and will no doubt, like all the contributors to these posts have different views. This is as it should be, and I hope always will be. It would actually be a pretty boring world if we all thought the same One of my own personnel opinions is that it cannot be logical that people can compete on highly modified Spanish/ Italian bikes ( and I am a Bultaco arch enthusiast of 40 plus years) but if someone takes a Chinese engine ( God forbid) and makes something around it - then it is not OK We need to sort some classes to take account of this However, unfortunately what often happens, is people make or buy a bike - and I have already said I applaud innovation - but then expect classes to be altered to cater for them . The correct method would probably be to look at classes first and proceed from there, or try to persuade us and everyone that classes should be altered well before a season staerts Classic Trials are not alone in this dilema. KTM produced an excellent 144cc Enduro bike. So did TM There was no class in any British Enduro Championship for those who bought them to ride it in - they had a bike they could not ride, at least not in Championships, and while we have now eventually altered classes to allow them in, it was once again wrong way round. Indeed in European and World Enduro inc Indoor Enduro there is still no class/no ride for a 144cc machine So, message is really, yes things have to be looked at but cart before horse rarely works out for anyone
  10. There seem to be many posts on this subject which seem to be getting quite a few people embroiled in various arguments, innuendo and accusation. In my opinion the most sensible post expresses the opinion that it is time everyone just got on with enjoying the actual riding of the trials, stopped moaning about what everyone else is doing and based the result of how many times they stopped or put foot down, which is what we all thought trials was about surely? Unfortunately there is also a fair bit of miss information circulating, and perhaps it is worth putting this correct: There were changes made to the Sammy Miller series for 2015 and the intention was as stated in italics in the PR which was circulated and which I paste below. While the intention as stated, was perhaps good, the inclusion of the 50 machines etc was not so good and this attempt at sorting one problem resulted in causing more. So for 2015 - note the date. The part in bold was introduced. People need to actually read this, but also note what the last para states i.e that a complete review will take place for 2016. Therefore for 2015 we will have to work with what we have, which I will come back to later. Re – 2016 – yes there will be a review and we will have some ideas Will it solve all the problems and make everyone happy ? Doubtful , More chance of a lottery win. Why- Because too many want a set of regulations, as long as they suit them. Do not take my word for it , just look back over the posts on such matters past and present and it is very easy to see the diversity of opinion. When we introduced a Special Class that many are suggesting – we had complaints Some riders who we would probably regard as riding “ Specials” insisted on circumnavigating the rules to continue riding in the original classes? Pot hunters ? Probably. The problem with a Special class is defining exactly what is a “ Special” and what is not, and as I have stated some who certainly should know better take a delight in finding a loophole BEWARE : All this may be controversial stuff may be fun for some – BUT the real problem that some others have sensibly mentioned, is that all this is likely to pee- off organisers and it eventually will. Any organiser of any trial knows how much work is involved, finding a venue, marking the sections, finding Observers, producing results and so on, to make at the end of the day the cash they would achieve running a small boot sale. Those who like to comment on what everyone else should do, but never actually get involved in running an event in any shape or form or part of the problem not solution. Wake up lads, you are going to put another nail in the coffin if you expect these hard working organisers to also examine machines in the minutest of details to determine if they belong in the class they have entered. These are Classic trials which are supposed to be enjoyable for all. It ain’t the TT. For the pundits who at each and every opportunity have all the answers , why do not some of you volunteer to go to the events and be a specific Machine examiner. If we have volunteers I will try to set this up, including some expense for your travel. Any takers? That would make any 2016 review far easier. japes 1275 comments about ACU being paid to sort all this out, merely shows how totally out of touch he really is and probably still believes in Father Xmas. If my payment from ACU totals enough for a pint during 2015 I will be absolutely delighted. However I could be wrong, and he may have the answers, when he speaks about MSA regulations, great- lead by some example, produce your version of what should go in the ACU book – us highly paid bods will have an easy time just inserting it – job done. To make things easy, why not do as a few others have done ( unfortunately without that much agreement from others) ) on TC put down the definitive description of what the classes should be, and see if we can get some sort of agreement. Back in the real world. We made changes to try to accommodate all. A silly article in the press tried to indicate that Jon Bliss was being prevented from riding etc This was not true, and that is certainly not what is wanted. I actually applaud those who think a bit outside the box and try to produce something a bit different. I ride one. The question really is does a particular machine fit into the existing Championship classes. For any machines that did not we introduced the two Non Championship classes , one on each route so that no-one was refused a ride. We will examine all this again for 2016. Iis it not time we had a bit of self discipline in our sport. We are mostly at an age where we should be leading by example. Does it really necessitate all this aggravation and conjecture as to if a bike has this or that. We have two routes - A & B determining severity. Just enter one of them, and if anyone has any doubts about the validity of their own bike, just enter the Non Championship class and enjoy your day. The results sheet will show how you fared against others , and after all is that not all we really require Now as below for 215 and so there can be no doubt For Classes 3 & 6 : Twinshock, Drum Brakes and not eligible for Class 2 or 5 respectively AND AN ORIGINAL OR REPLICA /SILHOUETTE FRAME OF A MACHIME COMMECIALLY AVAILABLE AND ADVERTISED PRIOR TO 1990. The twin shock and drum brakes should be easy to determine. The latter is where it gets controversial – perhaps. If it “ looks” like the machine it purports to represent – we can regard it as a replica/ silhouette If it does not – or just has a bit if it looks like the original – it cannot be deemed to be a replica/ silhouette Therefore, it must follow a machime not complying with these three things must go into Non Championship class, either on Route A or Rouite B Enjoyable day out, but no Championship points John Collins Chairman ACU T & E The intention of the amendments made to the classes of the ACU Sammy Miller Trial Championship was an attempt to bring the classes of Twinshock machines, which often had the Replica or Silhouette descriptions, into line with the other British Bike classes which have been in existence for many years. The desire was, and still is, to prevent modern mono machines being converted to Twinshocks and also to confirm that a Replica should be just that i.e a Replica of something previously made and in line with the overall philosophy of the Series. The age of a rider, capacity of any particular machine is not a relevant argument against this attempt. However it does appear that the introduction of the words “50 machines” has caused concern and therefore for 2015 the criteria for CLASSES 3 & 6 will be: For machines with twin-shock rear suspension and drum brakes as at the time of manufacture which are not eligible for class 2 and 5. All machines must have original frames or have replica/silhouette frames of machines that were commercially available and advertised prior to 1990. Additional Non Championship Twin-shock Specials Class: For machines with twin-shock rear suspension and drum brakes which are not eligible for Classes 3 and 6. This class is intended for competitors to enjoy the principle of this Series with specials which are not eligible. This additional class will be included on both Route A and Route B PLEASE NOTE: FOR 2016 IT IS INTENDED THAT A COMPLETE REVIEW OF ALL THE CLASSES WILL BE UNDERTAKEN AS THE TRIALS AND ENDURO COMMITTEE REMAIN OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORIGINAL PHILOSOPHY OF THIS SERIES IS BEING LOST AND NEEDS EXAMINATION.
  11. Leave well alone, the flywheel you show is the correct one and bike will run fine Only flywheel worth messing with is the one fitted to the 175cc which were lazy to say the least, and I used to turn these down on lathe to try to liven them up, but even that was a bit of a ase of time Usually in such matters Mr Bult got it pretty close, and you will not need to worry about riding it as it will be spot on
  12. Hi Hope I can help In theory your Model 190 would be a 238 Sherpa about 1977 / 78 So - 238 cc BUT many people bored them out to 250cc , not least because there were a lot of 250 pattern pistons available at less cost etc, or just wanted to turn them into 250, or have been bored several times. A 238 in theory can be bored out about 8 times ( although we usually missed a size out to allow for ovality) Even after that Sammy Miller etc used to sell extra size pistons ie 73mm up Ah - the good ole days!!! The 238 had a 71mm bore and earlier ( up to 1975/76 ) all 250cc were 72 mm bore The markings you show are not that important. If you look underneath te piston, on inside skirt, it will tell you 72mm if 250 or 71 if 238 These are standard bore sizes - if there are no markings underneath - just put vernier across and it will be 71 or 71 plus - or 72 or 72 plus - The " plus" I refer to is when it is fitted with an oversize piston. I If you clean the top of piston with some wire wool etc , you will find out if it is " oversize" as it wil be stamped, usually toward front ie + 25, or + 50 or + 75. This means if you had the original 238 piston and +50 on it - size will be 71.50. If you have a 250 piston fitted and it states + 50 it will be 72.50 If not oversize mark ie the + is shown it will be a standard. Wiring - easier. From your engine you should have Black - Connect to your HT coil Green - Connect to a good earth point - I use one of coil mounting bolts ( clean paint off frame) Thats your ignition sorted The yellow only connected if you want lights The red - again rarely connected for brake lights
  13. This is the very point I am trying to make to Pete, there are many who believe that the interpretation the MSA have put on some things may be different to what others believe – and this is exactly why at this time we are more than a little reluctant to say all ACU events that in any way use Public Highway must have authorisation I understand why you think I dismissed exemption ( not quite word but we all know what we mean) point C . The fact is I did not, I thought like you infer that this would enable us to carry on as we were etc. In fact it was my banker, and I have not finished with it yet However, the MSA have said no. I have said, and I really mean it this time I am not going to discuss point after point in an open forum as in my opinion this weakens any defence that someone who inadvertently or otherwise, believed they did not need authorisation . Part C is one I would particularly like to explore more, but I can only assure you 100% that when I raised at meeting we had with MSA I was informed it did not allow us to run within the Act as we thought it should I also stated that we had taken legal opinion, and these posts are forcing me to start putting these on air – but in this particular case I will simplify and say that IF the event was only about riders conforming to the Highway Code and awarded merit for their performance then it could make use of Regulation C . The stumbling block is that the competitor is required to do more than simply comply with the Highway Code. By the “ more” there would be other regulations ( Trials) in place for that event and even if this part were off road – as we know it would be , and that part may /would /could introduce a route to be taken by competitors or if a route is likely to be taken by competitors . This is because the competitor is required to do more ( at some point) than simply comply with Highway Code. Personally ( and I stress this word) I think that a lot of this hinges on what is an “ event” and that needs more careful work And so it goes on. I have not dreamt the above( unfortunately) and all Centres and interested Clubs and individuals were handed sheets which contained much of our legal advice on Nov 17th. At MSA, point C was not acceptable as a means to avoid the legislation. Once more we will take more advice on this interpretation, and I know I have simplified the words. All I can sign off with once more is to say none of this is acceptable, none of this really helps, and little of it is my original work, it has been gleaned for solicitors and speaking directly with MSA . At present, I think that we will once more, probably over the next week or two after speaking and taking more advice, once more try to put all these points into a well reasoned and constructive argument and once more request another ( 4th visit I think) meeting with MSA. Then each and every point can be examined once more, together with any additional advice and paperwork we have complied ( there is some important stuff) . I do not know if this will go much good, but we will try, and so we should.
  14. No, it is not the wrong answer. It is the only answer at present. If you believe it is the wrong answer, then there was no real point in asking the question in first place ? Your concern must in first instance be with your own organisation before worrying about everyone else. If your opinion is that the ACU should at this juncture refuse to issue Permits for events without authorisation , put this forward via your Centre as a proposition. I think we need to make a distinction between leadership and dictatorship. It may well be that in future we will have to make this decision, but we are not there yet. It may be close – but not yet. If we have to take such drastic action in future, I believe we should at least do a lot more work in trying to ease the burden for organisers. We may not be able to change the Act, but we may be able to change the way it is implemented. We may be able to change the time scales, we may be able to change the charges etc Many organisers sincerely believe that they do not need this authorisation and that their interpretation of the Act enables them to run as they have done in past. They may well be inclined to use the fact that there is documentation declaring that Trials should not have been included in first place as a defence should they be incorrect. They may well be inclined to use fact that according to our legal advice – which we would certainly make available to them , that the Act is badly drawn up and ambiguous ( as were many other Acts of that era) I clearly stated at the outset that I was not going to dig a bigger hole for ourselves than we are already in , and that remains. If people are that worried about the ACU issuing Permits for an event that is illegal, the logical step forward is to also worry about issuing Permits for events without being 100% sure that the machines and rider are legal? Sometimes riders and organisers are going to have to make decisions for themselves. Sometimes we are all going to have to use a bit of common sense. While we are still looking at all the possibilities, that is how it shall remain. While there is a chance that we can work with MSA to make it all less onerus – then we will continue working. While we have recognised experts within a matter of days, still trying to see if there is a solution – we will continue to do so. Unfortunately , it may well come to a situation where we will have to say No permit without MSA authorisation – but we are not there yet. It may be getting closer by the day but not yet. Within a week we will be studying very closely a document that was produced by a recognised body that was of the opinion the Act should not nor was ever intended to encompass us. Surely it is worth trying to gather this all together and try to at least make further effort we before we pass out some typical ACU edict of old? At the ACU we are damned if we do and damned if we do not. We have lots of emails declaring we should go easy on it all, and then posts saying we are lacking in leadership if we do so. For me, the sensible option is to wait until the full hand of cards are played out. All organisers know the score, if they are worried they can either apply for the authorisation, or unfortunately as some have done , cancel. There is no easy answer as I thought I had explained and it may well be that difficult decisions are going to have to be made, but they will be with our organisers rather than just thrust upon them. It worries me a little that some people cannot wait to see a rapid decline in events we have treasured for years.
  15. All I can do I think is answer Pete question Yes the ACU will issue you with a Permit If you ( having been made aware ) of the situation and been directed to appropriate guidelines etc we will take the view that you actually know best. I think some of these other posts have given the options quite sensibly. I would love to be able to tell anyone “ No you do not have to do it” or “ just ignore it” – I am afraid I cannot Equally , I or anyone else at this juncture do not wish to say “ You must do this” If organisers are happy that what they have done in past is OK or if their interpretation of the Act gives them enough confidence to just carry on as they were, I think this is what they will do. I know this may sound a bit like sitting on the fence – and that I am afraid is exactly what it is. In all the years of involvement with ACU I do not think I have ever come across a problem where I could not see a solution. It may not have been the correct solution, it may not have been a popular one , but it has been a solution. This time I have to say I cannot see one. One also has to be very careful not to make things worse. I have spent about 3 to 4 hours this morning reading and re reading all the various papers and advice etc , and to be honest every time one thinks there is a if there is a solution, you read a bit more and find a stopper e.g “ a specific route to be taken by competitors , or if a particular route is likely to be taken by competitors . As morning goes one you get more frustrated, especially as the bloody thing was never intended for us in the first place. We are continuing to work on it, next week we have another important meeting and I am sure we will soon after that be having another visit to the MSA. If we can only make things less onerus I would be happier.
×
×
  • Create New...