The eledgebility for pre 65 bikes is obviously a very emotive one, I agree with a lot of what Mike Rapley says, personaly I think that the pre 65 rules should have been jumped on and policed a long time ago. I have just looked up "pre" (as in pre 65) in my dictionary and the defenition is beforehand, previous to, so there we have it, does that mean "ONLY" needs to look like" pre 65?, or should it mean the machine specification should be, beforehand, and previous to 65. for example I find it hard to understand how a trials bike using a frame that is made in the 80's from a specification of steel that did not exist in 65 can remotley be accepted as pre 65. There are so many fiddles & fiddle parts that seem to be accepted, the mind boggles !!. But thats my opinion.
Is it now time to call a halt to pre 65 development, if it is allowed to cary on are we to see in a few years time crankcases manufactured from composite materials, and engine parts made of simular material, and ceramics ?, and/or frames made from carbon fibre tubing "glued" together somehow, and then will we say " well it looks like a alloy crankcase, the frame tubes look like they are steel, and what does it matter if the piston is made from a ceramic material, you cant see it!. If the rules are not looked at this will thru natural progression and human deceitfulness happen. Perhaps there are people that want to see wonderful "natural" 60's trials bikes pushed to the rear of the shed and never used, or only seen at exhibitions, that would be so sad, it is our history, part of our British trials bike heritage may be lost, to what ?, something that "LOOKS" like a 60's trials bike.
As a matter of interest, would my 1965/5 BSA C15 trials bike with the frame that I made in1964, that has no frame tubes beneath the engine, or the "works" C15 BSA with monoshock rear suspension that was made in 1964/5 be elegiable for the pre 65 scottish ??.
Slinny
