old trials fanatic

OK question answered. So anything goes then and sod the consequences. Anybody had any experience of fitting Villiers outer cases to a TY250 mono engine? After all the statement says in Twinshock "is fitted with twinshocks at time of manufacture" so as long as the basic frame starts that way it's a free hand. Let loose the dogs of war and to hell with the consequences And may the best man who knows an engineer and has deep pockets win Question what about the monoshock conversions to the MAR OSSA that i remember seeing? Now they were fitted with twin shocks at time of manufacture. Perhaps the best solution then is to scrap the twin shocks and fit a monoshock rear end. See we have been looking at the problem incorrectly all along. Lateral thinking outside the box wins again

Well i've been going on about this for ages and some other posts in other categories have touched on it so here goes. The ACU produce a handbook. In that handbook are various rules and regulations pertaining to all the forms of Motor Cycle sport within the ACU jurisdiction. So how come there is such a wide varience in elegibility of the Pre65 bikes and now the twinshock class at Club, Center, National and err Scottish (i'm gonna regret this arent i?) Why is it beyond the power of the ACU not to produce a binding spec for these classes that applies to all events run under the auspices of the ACU? It's a nightmare if you are building a bike to know what you should and should not fit plus it would remove all the backbiting and bad feeling re what is and what is not a "special". What really worries me is when i stop doing this will the pain go away?

Agreed Merlin but wasnt a clue

Thats uncanny Woodie me too

Totally in agreement about the ACU need to step in here and produce elegebility rules and regulations. They are the governing body. They should grasp the nettle and produce something. Not much chance of that happening though is there

or http://villiers.biz/ where i bought most of my villiers bits from

With you on that Mick. I've been using TQF fluid in the clutch since i bought my first Bultaco slimline in 1971. Currently using TQF in the B40 along with EP90 in the gearbox. Seems ok. Never had problems on any of my bikes. Change it after every 4 or 5 trials as its cheap enough. I've always thought the thing with oils is to change it regularly as fresh oil even if a cheapo one is better than an expensive oil thats only changed rarely. One other thing i am led to believe that a lot of engine builders do NOT recommend synthetic oils till AFTER the engine has been fully run in as they do not allow the bearing surfaces to bed in properly and using synthetic from new can actually harm an engine Only what i've been told by "people in the know" Ah thats better

OK you did ask. Obviously you havent read previous posts. I have previously stated my position on youth funding, and been slated for it, from ACU funds that comprise of my contributions. I DONT agree that the ACU should spend ANY of their scarce funds on possibly funding some future wunderkint. If they want funding then they should go out and secure said funding from sponsors. If they are struggling to get funding from sponsors then they probably are not presenting a sound business proposition. Alternatively the business doesnt see a recogniseable return on their investment, which is probably more likely. Businesses are not stupid if it was a good form of exposure for them they would soon jump on the bandwagon. "Whats in it for me" applies. It's a tough old world get used to it. If Dabster et al think it's such a necessary and good idea then why dont they contribute directly themselves to www.iwantloadsofmoneytobethenextworldchampion.com or bung a cheque into the persons bum bag when they next see them. Nobodys stoping anybody sending as much as you want to whoever are they???? Whatever dont assume i want my ACU contributions spending on "youth funding" thank you. If the ACU have even

Didnt follow either of the two previous posts. Just put it down to me age. Now i've got a headache

Can only speak from personal experience locally and the simple answer is too much hassle. One of my local clubs has just announced that next year they are combining the Pre 70 British Bike 4 strokes and 2 strokes due to lack of entries. If they started subdividing the Twinshocks into the classes you suggest then often ther would be no entries or only sometimes one entry per class. The other club at which i ride grudgingly allows "Pre 72" Spanish twinshocks. Now Pre 72 is a bit of a weird choice anyway and is almost impossible to police as so many parts are interchangeable on Spanish twinshocks that you can mix and match to make the best of the components look like they are from a Pre 72. The same thing would apply to the Pre 76 and Pre 82 parts of your suggestion. It becomes too complicated if too many classes are introduced. My own preference would be British Bike Pre 70 4 stroke, Pre 70 2 stroke, Pre unit 4 stroke, pre unit 2 stroke, Rigid, Spanish twinshock, all other twinshocks 2 and 4 strokes, aircooled monoshocks pre 95, others. Plus Novice, Intermediate, Expert, over 50, youth, TY 80. You see how complicated it becomes? Which ones do you combine / amalgamate / drop altogether. Same thing happens if you introduce too many alternative routes. A section becomes a sea of flags and a nightmare for rider and observer if you are not too careful. Me i find most times two routes are enough with the recent adoption of a 50/50 route at one of my clubs working well also. You have a valid point but until we get back to large varied entrys, around 100 ish, then it results in an award for everybody which would be far too costly for the organising club. Here's one for ya. Who is going to police the scrutineering of the bikes to decide if they are "legal" for the class they are being ridden in? What mods are and are not allowed within that class? (see comments re the Scottish pre 65 trial ) Interesting discussion point though.

Now dont laugh but i did once see an Ossa "modified" similar to the way you describe. The previous owner had done this as he had used a flat sprocket instead of the dished one that was fitted as std. Of course to fit a flat sprocket you should use a spacer but the dork had moved the engine over instead Takes all sorts i suppose. Probably not the case with yours as i am sure you would have checked that anyway. Be interestingto know the outcome anyway. Would like a nice MAR myself. Used to like my old one. Happy memories.

OK HL i havent organised a trial or put the work in that you do so i dont walk the walk so i retract the bit about "stuff it to the Scotish Pre65 organisers" it was a cheap shot. It, and this is only my opinion, seems that some bikes get through with mods, some obvious some not, and others do not. Now this may be down to the clause you mention and i did note it by the way. However unless somebody cares to protest a particular bike then it's not worth the ink it's written in. Highly improbable that any of the top finishers bikes will be protested as that would only be viewed as "sour grapes" so nobody is likely to do that. Personal opinion is that like other forms of motorsport that the onus as to elegibility should be down to the scrutineers. The perception amongst many is that the scrutineers check every bike for elegbility and apply the same criteria across the board. They manifestly do not and rely on the get out clause you mention above. As a friend of mine who does ride in the trial says "The rules are the rules even if they are not applied evenly if you dont agree with that dont ride" so i dont even bother trying to enter. My bike, Otter framed B40, is frowned on and would no doubt be "unlucky" in the ballot. The Scottish and the Pre65 2 day will always be an oversubscribed success so what people think is really irrelevant. Just dont understand why they go through the cherade every year and why dont they just be more open about who and which bike will and will not be allowed entry. Why do they have this cop out clause anyway? and why can scrutineers apply elegibility regulations in other forms of motorsport but seem unable to do so at the Scottish Pre65? That was a question NOT a dig, if it came over as one it's because i'm not very eloquent

Keep it comin great stuff. Bout time someone stuffed it to the Pre65 Scottish organisers.

Nice one Charlie. Ever thought of taking up Law? As my old teacher used to say QED Let me guess ? The Pre 65 Scottish will just ignore the evidence and carry on doing as they like.

OK got to ask. What the hell is a minder? and why would you need / want one anyway? surely if they are what i assume they are then thet is "receiving outside assistance" and as such isnt that against the rules let alone the spirit of Trials? I get this funny feeling i've missed something earth shatteringly crucial here. Whats that ? Oh yeah "sod off you old git" OK i'll get me coat Not something to do with Arfer Dailey is it?

So why do they have a downer on them but Arials can be as supertrick as Neil Gaunts who recently admited over

Betarev3 the reason i mentioned the card / license idea was that John Cillins has already stated that it cost relatively little from the

"Anybody here like to post how much they would be willing to pay extra on their entry fee to help make sure all the sections are manned at a trial. As you said if at least travel expenses could be subsidised it may make the difference between a section manned or not." Ok most of the Trials i ride at are

Yeah post a piccy please. I spend most of my evenings in the shed angle grinder and mig welder to hand, sad git should get out more i know , so am always interested i other peoples "projects".

Thanks Betarev3. I agree about the observers should perhaps get paid. There are a couple of people who regularly turn up who dont have anybody riding but have a love for the sport. They are both in their pensionable years, i wouldnt guess at their ages as i put my foot in it often enough as it is, and though they do it for love the fuel etc has to come from somewhere. As has been said Classic and Pre65 trials suffer possibly more than modern trials as there are few youngsters who would want to ride an old British clunker so no kids = no parents. I deeply feel though that an "observer corps" is something that could and should be considered at some point and if so that the ACU should most definately be involved in some capacity as the observers are as much a part of Trials as the riders. I have never liked the idea of just putting the boards out and leting people pick them up and mark themselves. It just doesnt feel "right". I know i'm an old git and the world has moved on etc etc I always make sure that i observe for the clubs that i ride for at at least one of their trials a year, just me putting something back, but as i usually ride only a couple of times a month i would be willing to observe at other clubs events but my finances are tight also and i wonder about paying out for fuel to stand sometimes in the pouring rain and wind on a bleak moorside for nowt. Perhaps if there were some recompense from the organising club, especially the ones i have no intention of riding at, then i too would be more willing to help them out. I cant be on my own in feeling this surely? I still feel that the ACU should have a view or discuss the issue of a lack of especially consistent trained observers who are fully conversant with current ACU rules and regulations. For instance how many observers know of or apply rule TSR22l ? Kicking rocks out of sections Mr Thorpe (Dave) ??? I wasnt aware of it till i read the handbook. Thanks John. See there is a point in sending it out. Why couldnt there be a list of approved and ACU accredited observers who the organisers of ACU events could contact and pre book to attend their event thereby eliminating the uncertantity of trying to find "willing" people on the day? After all the organiser of the Trial has put many hours into laying out sections only to have them potentially unused due to a lack of observers. OK i know people would sooner argue at length about funding a future World Champion, i've already said my bit on that subject, but if there are no observers how is that future World Champion going to hone his or her skills? Or is it because it affects Pre65 more than modern it doesnt matter? Possibly Sorry John you must have posted while i was typing. I'm a bit slow wot wiv only using two fingers like

Look forward to that. You can usualy find me puffing and panting and generally struggling around the course at any Peak Classic or Midland Classic Trials which are the two clubs i mostly ride or observe for.

Now apart from the Pre65 elegibility issue which i have voiced before, which incidentally the ACU apparently have no position on?????, one issue that is affecting all of us whether you ride modern or like me "Classic Pre65" trials is the lack of observers. Almost all the events i have ridden in this year, my first year back at trials since 1985, have had a shortage of observers with usually 50% of the sections unmanned. Last Sunday there were only 3 yes 3 observers. Now to me this ruins the event. I DO NOT blame the organisers, who put a hell of a lot of effort into the event, I DO NOT blame the ACU or anybody else for that matter. I was just wondering if the ACU had a stance on the provision and encouragement of observers without which all the discussions about youth funding, license fees, whatever is all a bit immaterial as without observers there are no Trials. Well not Trials as i percieve them. Our Road Racing chums have the BRMC and other bodies. Isnt it about time a corps of observers was formed? A bit like referees for Sunday league and club football matches? I know my views are not that popular amongst some of the regulars on this site but i do feel strongly that this is a very serious issue affecting our sport and that the ACU sould have a view and possibly take a lead on the provision of and training / recruitment of observers. Surely things can not go on like this for much longer? I know that some areas dont have any problem finding more than enough observers to man all the sections but that is not the case in my centre. As someone else said in another post "we are the ACU" so that is why i have posted this here. I sincerely hope i have not broken any rules by doing so and i am sure Atom Ant or Andy will soon remove my post if i have. So John are the ACU aware of the dire situation in some centres and do they have a view ? Thank you

Betarev3 I'm having an extension built to the underground bunker as we speak No i havent got kids. I wish i had but the wife couldnt have any and that was that. I was brought up to believe that you never asked for charity and everything you had in life was yours because you worked for it. Thats why i had two paper rounds, before and after school, plus a Saturday job at the local supermarket unloading lorries and scrubbing / washing floors. All so i could afford my first Bultaco Sherpa 250 slimline in 1971. Plus i used to fetch groceries, wash cars etc for prople to help fund it. My parents had no money to help so i did it myself. Not a sob story just some background facts. OK i was being a bit reactionary but i hear the same thing at work about their kids football, tai kuondo, horse riding, sailing etc etc etc My other point, and i am not decrying Dougie efforts and success in any way, was how EXACTLY have the Trials i and many others ride in every Sunday ACTUALLY benefited from Dougies sucess? How would the Trials that we all ride in benefit from "whoevers" future sucesses? Would it be good value for money for the ACU funds to spend them on funding some youths to ride trials bikes? Question. Business people, sucessful ones at least, are not slow to recognise a good opportunity when they see one. So why are all these talented young, or old, Trials riders not buried by offers of sponsorship and funding? Why are they not plastered with advertisers logos? Probably because said business people do recognise an opportunity when they see one and this is most definately NOT it. What would their business gain from sponsoring a rider? Very little if anything. So why should the ACU be any different? John has already explained that the licence fee is virtually totally swallowed up by sending out a licence and handbook so they make naff all out of Trials and i for one would NOT want to see an increase in the licence fee to help fund up and coming "superstars". Saying that if people want to contribute then they should feel free to send as much money as they can possibly afford and more to the riders concerned. I am sure they could find the addresses if they really wanted to. So why havent they? I know i am in the minority of one on this and that a British World Champion would be the saviour of Trials in this country so would be a price worth paying. I just dont believe it myself. Thanks for recognising my right to an opinion even if it does conflict with everybody elses.

Why does everybody with kids in this country seem to think they should be entitled to receive "special help"? You have kids because you want them. If you cant afford to have them then dont. If you cant afford to support them in their chosen sport, not just trials either this applies to children in ALL forms of sport, then tough. Thats life. Motorsport especially has always been such. You want sponsorship then bloody well go out and work for it and stop sitting on your backside waiting for "someone" to come to you with the crock of gold. We seem very happy in this country to keep throwing money at the problem. Personally i dont see there is a problem. Who gives a toss if there is a British World Champion or not? Did Trials overall massively benefit from having one? Did Trials benefit at all from having one? If you have a budding "Wunderkint" in your family then do what Jenson Buttons dad did. Remortguage your house, sell your car, stop having holidays. YOU FUND HIM / HER. Market them to businesses. SELL THEM but for christs sake stop expecting the rest of the sport to fund your "little johnnys" climb up the slippery pole to success. You want the rewards then YOU do something about it. The ACU cant and IMHO shouldnt afford it. Know that wont be popular but still feel it needs saying. I'll go and hide in the shelter now

I would love to ride either of the events but only on a level playing field, elegibility wise not the sections, as yet i still havent seen a universally recognised definition that is also applied blindly across the ENTIRE entry of "trick". Back to my original and often repeated point that the ACU should publish in the handbook a strict no exceptions specification of what is allowed and what is specifically NOT allowed for both these competitions. Otherwise this arguement will go on forever. "Specials" class or no specials class. From what i have seen if you apply the no non factory std components rule then ALL the bikes would be in the "specials " class as non are un modified even if only running modern tyres, brake shoes, nylon lined cables, ignition components inc spark plugs and lubricants. How many are running alloy rims when fitted with chrome steel one from the factory? OK you many say this is taking it to the nth degree but without a universally applied and BINDING set of construction regulations that apply to ALL events then how can you have a level playing field? How many Cubs do you see without frame strengthening fitted with their original steel tank and a 3.50 section rear tyre because a 4.00 wouldnt fit in the narrow swing arm?