old trials fanatic

Hear hear. Well said. I cant understand the anti BSA attitude either.

Surely Sammy cannot be wrong.... Nah surely not Run mine with 14" units. However did find the steering had a tendancy to tuck under a LOT. Spent ages modifying the front yokes to get the head angle back to stop it tucking which i have now achieved. This of course depends on the weight of the rider and the spring rate as the important thing is how the bike "sits" with you on it standing on the pegs. Remember that whenyou are riding the back will tend to sit down more than the forks when on level ground plus when going down drop offs the forks will effectively shorten under compression and this will also effectively steepen the steering angle. Trial and error i'm afraid. It's a trade off between ground clearence, how quick you want the steering and dont also forget the footrest height. I also had to drop the footrests and make adaptor plates to relocate them more rearward as once the height was raised with longer rear shocks the footrests were also higher and it was a struggle to dab or two as there was too long a reach. OK whilst clean but it became either a clean or a five which is ridiculous. One final thing dont forget if you lengthen the rear shocks you heighten the seat. Nothings ever simple. Re you first statement about Sammy. He assembles from what he can locate at the best price to give him the largest margin NOT the best parts for the job in hand. Always remember that Sam is a businessman not a philanthropist. Sorry but i'm biased after years of dealing with the bloke i now only do so as a last resort. Good luck

I refer my learned colleage to my previous comments on the ACU forum postings The Scots always make it up as they go along and fiddle the rules to suit certain makes. Arials can do what they like Cubs also but woe betide you if you have a B40 or C15. The rules re forks only refers to the sliders and the yoks anyway so you can fit whatever internals you like. Usage of the word type is as ambiguous as you want it to be. How do you prove or disprove the age of a gearbox? What constitutes a gearbox. When is a "B25 square fin barrel" a B25 square fin barrell? what if i have it turned round in a lathe? what if it came off a TR25? what if i had one cast specially? why are Cub 250 conversions with specially cast brand new barrels ok then? what defines a "Pre65 frame" ??? How do you date a wheel hub? I could go on and on but whats the point. It's the same thing year in year out. The "names" will still ride and win on tricked up machinery, Thorpy on his cub in last years SSDT Pre65 and Neil Gaunts Arial to name but two, and the masses can do the other. Have you actually inspected Mick Grants Cub closely? what has that got to do with Triumph Pre65 design? Why oh why dont the bloody ACU DO something for once and have elegibility rules that apply to ALL machines and ALL classes at ALL their trials????? I assume the trial in question is under ACU jurisdiction? or does that go by the by north of the boarder too ?

Let us know how you get on along with piccys as i was thinking of doing the same to mine

Workshop manual says 300cc SAE 10 but i've tried 300cc SAE 5 and they then only seem to have about 4 1/2 inches of travel. With no oil in theres approx 6 inches of travel so i kept increasing in 20cc amounts and find on mine that 270cc gives me full travel and a nice soft action. Think Paoli posted a while ago 288cc Suck it and see really depends on how you like your forks. Me i dont like to think i'm loosing out on fork travel so as long as they dont bottom out and dont pogo then "suits you sir"

Not much help really but i do know that the WD B40 GB engine gear cluster will NOT fit the early C15 cases. Will apparently fit the late ones with points on side cover but not the earlier distributor cases. Need to use C15T cluster for that one. Like rocking horse poo. Other than that sorry i cant help as i sold the spare B40 engine inc gear cluster etc Good luck and if you find out who was selling them please post it, after you have sorted yourself out of course, in case somebody else is thinking of the same.

Thought i had better get "legal" so sent off for my ACU trials licence this week. Posted the form on Monday 6:00 pm received two e mails from the ACU on Tuesday and today Wednesday received my new licence. Now thats what i call service. Well done ACU and thank you from the heart of my bottom

No idea but how did you get on with the Honda (solvol special ) Nice seeing you in unexpected surroundings even if it was as bearer of bad news re my now having a redundant Pinky

Fairly accurate. Sort of Victor Meldrew with a spatter of mud As my only interest is "Classic trials" i take very little interest in WTC or the modern trials scene i didnt therefore feel it pertinent to pass any comments on modern trials other than why should the ACU "sponsor" riders using my subs. I do have a concern about Pre65 elegibility though. Never ridden a modern bike so again cant comment other than i couldnt do what you and others do even in my wildest dreams so i think the phrase is "respect" ? Thanks for the compliment. I think?

I've read the above posts and a lot of them refer to the ACU and their funding or lack of of young riders and competitors in World Rounds etc. Am i the only one who thinks why SHOULD my ACU subs be used to fund those competitors? Personally i dont see why the ACU should. If you want to contribute to their future careers then feel free to do so. If you want to sponsor them personally or through your company then fine but i object to MY subs being used for this. Sorry but i want the money i contribute to the ACU coffers, however small, to be spent on grass roots trials no more no less. I know this wont be a very popular attitude but it's what i feel and believe. You can have a British World Champion if you want but if the grass roots level of the sport collapses then SO WHAT !!! the price would be too high. I RIDE in trials that is MY ONLY CONCERN. How those trials are organised and administered is MY concern NOT the presupposed "right" of some extremely talented person to recieve funding to attain fame and stardom in WTC. At MY expense. No way jose. You want to reap the rewards then YOU do the groundwork as Scorpa3 suggests. On the positive side i think that by and large, it's always easier to knock than to compliment, the ACU do a thankless job quite well. After all what is the alternative??? The only complaint / suggestion / proposal that i want to see implemented as soon as possible preferably by the end of the year is a formal binding set of construction regulations for Pre 65 trials bikes that would apply to ALL ACU sanctioned events. At the moment it is total chaos as to what is or what is not allowed. Seems to depend on the club, who you are, which model bike it is, how well you know the club secretary. This is NOT GOOD ENOUGH. I know the organisers of the Scottish Pre65 will carry on doing as they like and sod everybody else along with reason and common sense but we NEED a formal list of construction specification applicable to ALL ACU sanctioned events if for nothing else than to give a level playing field. Well thats my two pennorth so better put my flack jacket on as i sense incoming.

"If Dave Thorpe wasn't an OAP I would have considered rubbing his head in a puddle for queue jumping at the Manx." As i said earlier "nothing changes" does it. Thing is Daves been doing this for so long he thinks it's his right and people go "Oh yes he always does that". Same with marking. I must appologise if it appears i'm picking on Dave it's just that his is the first name that comes to mind when i try to think of an example

Nothing changed there mate. Always been the case. Many a time i've seen "names" get away with things that "normal" joe public gets docked marks for. Dave Thorpe used to virtually rebuild sections kicking all and sundry out of the way but nothing was ever said but when someone else did it then outcry. Same with stops in no stop trials, which is back to your point, "The names" always got more benifit of the doubt than the rest. I know it was not your point but the same thing happens with machine elegibility. It's amazing what gets turned a blind eye to if the bike belongs to a well known named rider but would be droped on if it was Joe Public. Dont know if anything would change no matter what rules were applied. There will always be some observers, not all i hasten to add, that will be "intimidated" by the reputation of the rider who they are observing. By "intimidated" i do NOT infer any actual communication verbal or physical on the part of the rider just oooh it's ********* what if i give him a ********* better let him have the benifit. I do agree with your basic premise just dont know if anything can or will ever change. As others have said i dont really care as long as everybody is marked the same by that observer in that section. Dont happen though does it? Cest la vie.

Totalshell if only more organisers followed your prophetic words then we would not be having this debate, or the one on another posting about a stop = 1 . Must admit to having a bit of a larf at a couple of the younger element who were riding as guests at a recent "Classic" event. There they were hopping, skipping and generally buggering about like a St Vitas dance sufferer only to get a FIVE. Next bloke just rode straight through the section on an old C15 for a clean. Priceless. Some people only know how to "break dance" on a bike so the organisers lay out the trial so they can. Sheesh funny old world innit?

I must be too old for all this. When does a stop become a stop then? How many milliseconds, seconds, minutes, hours, days etc etc? How the heck does anybody get a five then? Rolling back? By definition if you hop the bike due to the extension of the suspension along with any sideways movement there must have been an ammount of movement in relation to the point at which compared to a point stationary relative to the ground not taking into account the rotation of said Earth and tectonic plate movements or geological expansion or the tilting of the British Isles into the North sea. Therefore by stopping dependant on the direction that the bike and rider had attained relative to the Earts rotation a measureable ammount of rolling back or sideways movement must have occured therby incuring a five mark penalty. Basically this is a load of B*****ks in the same way that a stop incurs a 1 mark penalty as does a single dab. Simply put the only fair marking system is : Loss of forward motion = 5 Foot or any other part of the body touching the ground whilst still maintaining forward motion = 1 The above occuring twice = 2 The above occuring 3 times or more = 3 Progress maintained through the section without any of the above occuring = 0 The rider is deemed to have commenced riding the section once the front wheel spindle has passed the "Section Begins" marker and is deemed to have left the section once the front wheel spindle has passed the "Section Ends" marker. Should any part of the motor cycle cross the boundaries of the section as denoted by the section markers then a 5 mark penalty will be incured. Simple innit? All this "balancing", asking directions / help from minders, rolling backwards and forwards / sideways, pogoing and other forms of aerobics is deemed as Circus antics and should incur a 100 mark penalty and forceable re education at the OTF accadamy of Real Trials and How to Ride them. OOOH i do love a good rant. Dont make much difference to me as i get loads of fives anyway. Still at least it's easy to add up

We are almost back to British engine and a "silouette" formula then? Dont really have a BIG problem with it as a truly "original" trials bike should surely be preserved now not thrown down a rocky stream. I mean if a truly original bike got damaged as it surely would entering a trial then the broken parts would need replacing therefore it would no longer be "original" surely? Bikes of that era are becoming worth too much now anyway as are original twinshocks so as long as they are "in the spirit of pre65" or whatever and they look the part is it really a problem? As i posted before the thing that makes pre65 or pre70 bikes so costly, which is having an adverse effect on entries, is the "fiddle" bits. Just allow use openly of parts eaisily available to all from breakers and maintain a period British engine, drum brakes, twin shocks etc then vive la difference. I quite enjoy modding my old B40 as best i can. It's the expensive fiddle bits i have problems with and

Good points all. I'm one of those over 50 riders returning to trials as a bit of FUN. I prefer the NO STOP rule as it is simple and not open to the observers interpretation. Plus it allows and almost demands the use of sections that are more FUN and less dangerous and as Hillary says the week is hard enough as it is plus i have to go to work on Monday to pay for Sundays FUN. NON STOP is unambiguous and simpler for the more inexperienced observers and in these days of most trials being desperate for observers why make it more difficult and potentially confrontational????? Whatever i dont understand why events are run on different rules anyway especially when they are under the auspices of the ACU or in my case most of the clubs i enter are AMCA. Shame really as IMHO i've witnessed more arguements over this one aspect of the rules than any other. I blame cycle trials but then again i'm an old codger

I always think it works best when the Clubman route has one exit missing out the more difficult bit and the hard route has a different exit including the difficult bit. Keep it simple just like me I've never ridden a trial with more then just two routes and i find that confusing at times. I know it's not always possible but do prefer the Clubman exit here Hard route carry on idea. Much less confusing.

I do like the sound of that Scorpa3. Simple to the point and strangely more in the true spirit of competition in the late 60's when who didnt fit a Honda 50 front hub etc into their trials iron to save weight? Brakes were crap but then again in those days we tended to ride up hills etc not down drop offs. I do like the idea of British engine and British frame and the rest is free. Only problem is if i build a TLR replica frame in my garage in Derbyshire then it is British built after all. I remember a bloke turning up at a Midland Classic event at Bonsal Moor on a BSA B40 engined bike with the most beautiful chrome moly tube frame. Looked like a Spondon race bike. Drop dead georgeous but so un Pre65 c/w laid down shocks, tank mounted between the top tubes looked almost Gas Gas. As long as the frame is "period" and the engine is British to start with with a class structure 4 strokes verses 2 strokes it all sounds good to me. Perhaps then Pre65 could actually mean what it says and some more original bikes could re emerge from the sheds to run in their own class. Plus trail bikes are such a good way to get new blood interested in the sport. Cheep too. Bout time a bit of common sense was applied. As for the Sammy Miller rounds then as a National series they should reflect that status. Tighter application of the construction regs. sections should be tough but in line with the Classic style of section used in the late 60's and early 70's. i.e. 3 or 4 connecting sub sections in and along stream beds and climbs. How about incorporating a stop and restart test along with a timed and observed section all used as a tie breaker. Showing my age now so i'd better shut up Thanks Scorpa 3 bloody good idea.

Well said Big John. I remember posting ages ago when i was building the B40 that i was amazed that there were not ACU published regs for what was and what was not allowed re the construction of a "Pre65" bike. There are probably as many permutations as there are people on this one so why have formal rules not been laid down before that apply to ALL bikes entering. Why is a Jap carb ok on a Cub but not on a B40? Why are Arials given carte blanche to be modified ad infinitum when other bikes are not? Surely if a Jap carb is ok on one make then it should be allowed on ALL makes same with other mods. Re the post from twinshockdude i feel his point is based on his own ability NOT on the ability of the rank and file Clubmen who used to enter trials which he helped organise. Not having a dig just an observation made after talking to riders and himself. Nothing wrong in wanting stiff trials but dont assume ALL riders are able to or want to throw themselves and their bikes, which probably cost them an arm and a leg to build, at rock steps and drop offs that 20 years ago would have only been attempted in National trials. If the Sammy Miller rounds are suffering from a lack of entries then i feel it may have more to do with the ridiculous cost of building a "competitive" elegible bike. This is mainly down to the ridiculous situation when you have to hide modern fork internals and other trick / fiddle bits on the bike just to stay competitive. For instance a pair of forks from a breaker approx

Have you tried you tube? R2W trials also had a link not long ago on his site.

Tell me about it

Came to fit a new rear tyre to the pinky today. When i finally got the knackered tyre off found that the rim was very badly corroded. Outwardly it looks perfect but around the rim locks the alloy has corroded and just flaked off. Got it back to bare metal but the rim is probably only half the thickness that it should be in that area. Bugger and twice bugger So two options 1. get a good second hand wheel. Doubtful as i have a spare wheel and that is just as bad plus the last mono i had also had the same problem although not as bad as this one. 2. get the hub rebuilt onto a new rim. I think as i intend to keep the bike long term having the wheel rebuilt is the best way to go but i have heard stories about the spokes being unobtainable. So anybody had a wheel rebuilt? Who did it? How much? Only other alternative i can think of is to fit a hub off something else. If so has anybody fitted a different wheel with sucess? Would appreciate any helpful suggestions

Totally agree Bikespace. I've noticed the same in our area. I have mentioned it to a Clerk of the Course at one of the clubs i ride at. The problem there is that they are really a Classic bike club and cater for pre72 only and if he had his way the entry would be pre 65 four strokes only. There is the problem. Few youngsters would want to let alone be able to ride a British bike of that age and only the teenagers and the bigger ones at that could ride the Spanish twinshocks that are allowed if "pre 72". I proposed a TY175 / TL125 class firstly as an intro to get people as new members to the club but also to get some youth element not just as potential future riders but they also bring along a parent/guardian who could hopefully be roped in to observe. So even if it is against the policy of the club i feel that a class should be included whenever possible for younger or new entrants to the sport to "have a go" thereby keeping the club boyant and the observer pool large. The trail bike class would be an excellent addition to any pre65 club as the sections would not need to be any different and would be a cheap entry level to the sport. Pre65 has become too expensive for a lot of people to compete in and eventually twinshocks, unfortunately, will go the same way i am afraid. Anyway the posting was "Classic Trials More FUN than Modern Trials?" They can be if handled and promoted in the right way. That includes observers as an integral part of the event and encourageing a youth class is a good way to do it. Good on yer Bikespace.

True thats why it's always difficult to advise someone on what to buy as personal preference always plays a part along with the rose tinted glasses.

Thanks for the offer but i'll never let her go. Always wanted one and love the old girl to bits. Just find other bikes a bit easier to ride and get the same results on, usually around the bottom end of the results sheet.