woody

You have to be joking... did you ride events in the late 80s early 90s when these were the rules. If so and you've forgotten what it was like, watch some of the videos/DVDs of Nationals from that time. As Timp already mentioned, the poncing around in sections and outright posing of the 'look what I can do' brigade was tedious in the extreme. Leg waving, revving engines, rocking backwards and forwards, touching the peak of their helmets (why..??) losing their balance and needing a couple of hops to get it back. Repeat these actions several times and then finally they were ready to move the bike forwards over a rock or whatever to the next part of the section before the whole sorry process began again, over and over until they were out of the section or in a heap on the floor. The stationary balancing with constant adjustments was pure pain to watch, especially if you were a few riders back in the queue, waiting, bored out of your skull, for your own turn. Watch the 1993 Colmore if you want to witness it. The challenge will be not to fall asleep as the cameraman vainly waits for riders to do something other than stand stationary on the pegs. Why are we trying to fix something that doesn't appear to be broken. Trials such as SSDT, Lakes, Reeth, non-Novogar nationals are all enjoying bumper entries. The vast majority in those trials ride the clubman route. So if riders want the more difficult sections on the hard route that require you to be able to display the full repetoire of tricks, why isn't the balance the other way around with those riding the easier sections in the minority? Setting out sections to force trick riding will not make people learn it and gain the technique. It didn't back then with the 'anything goes' rules and history shows that entries declined. That was riders choice, no-one else's. The skill levels are too diverse now for one set of rules. To be able to compete on the level required at the top, constant practise is required, there is no substitute for thime on the bike. Who has time for that? The majority of riders only get to ride their bikes in the events, few have time or facilities to practise. As I said before I don't think for a minute that adopting WTC rules will miraculously produce the next UK champion, if it would why didn't we have one 10 - 15 years ago when rules were uniform. Bottom line is, it is the majority that need to be catered for, not the minority and this has to be considered carefully before any rule meddling takes place. Given the success of the trials I mentioned previously though, does anything really need changing?

Saw it whilst having my tea tonight. If you have a DVD from any of the other indoor rounds from this year just watch that as it is the same old sections, and same old result. No doubting their ability but it is just so repetitive these days with nothing different. Most impressive rides are the non-stop rides up the waterfall, especially Dougie's. At least they are riding the bikes on that section, they may as well be on pogo sticks for the others

I have a mono front end on my Majesty using the mono wheel so I didn't check to see if the Majesty wheel would fit, but the following needs to be overcome; - mono forks take bigger diameter spindle than Majesty - Majesty wheel has torque arm whereas mono doesn't so you'd need a bracket fabricated to hold the brake plate - new wheel spacers would need to be made - speedo drive won't fit You can get a mono front wheel complete with spindle and brake plate from Ellastone Offroad but they probably aren't cheap. Check ebay as there have been a couple on there recently but watch that the rim isn't rotten anywhere. Further considerations; - Majesty yokes need boring out to take larger diameter mono forks. Mono yolks won't fit Majesty headstock as the bearing size is different. I fitted a new steering head to mine to take the mono yokes. - Majesty yokes have less trail than mono yokes so if you aren't altering the headstock it is best to use the Majesty yokes. This is what Nick has done. - Majesty forks are in-line axle whereas mono are leading axle so it will alter your steering slightly but it may not be noticeable. Nick's steers ok. I steepened the angle on mine with the new headstock. Later Godden framed bikes have quicker steering than the earlier Yam framed bikes (reputedly anyway, I don't know for sure but it stands to reason) I'd say it is less hassle to use a mono front wheel and although it may prove pricey it may be the easier option as all you have to do is to bore out the yokes and in it goes. It also has a better brake - usually anyway...

Peronally, I just can't buy it that riding to the two different styles (or rule sets - whichever term you prefer) can be such a hinderance to a riders development or progression. Watch the WTC events and the BTC and there is very little difference in the way they ride anyway. In BTC the bikes are still hopped around sideways and maneouvered backwards relative to the direction of the section, as they are in the Novogar or non-championship nationals such as the Lakes and even the SSDT which is proper no-stop. If there is a line of thought which says riders can't cope with two rule sets, then should riders like Dougie enter the odd event on an enduro/motocross bike or use one for recreation, as the different technique in riding one will harm or dull their trials skills. I think not. Riders who are good enough and have the ability will always adapt, that is why they are that good. To play Devil's advocate again, remember the dark days of the early 90s when trials was suffering badly from excessively hard sections and the sport was dying on its knees. We rode the same rules as FIM then - the stop, hop, do whatever you like nonsense etc. No two sets of rules to worry about then, so why did we not have British riders filling the top ten of WTC when they weren't disadvantaged by different rules...?? Same reason as now, there were better riders elsewhere unfortunately. Don't misunderstand, I would love to see British World Champions in Trials, Enduro, Motocross etc. but if we don't have them it isn't going to affect my enjoyment of trials or enduros one jot. Bringing back full on trick riding however most certainly will. Aligning rules to the FIM in the hope that it will produce a champion isn't the answer to the sport in general. The vast majority of riders can't perform like that and those rules encourage section layout that they can't handle, so they'll give up - just like they did back in the 90s until a return to no-stop rekindled things. Do what you like with the proper BTC rules and the handful of riders who contest it, but leave the rest as they are, otherwise things may well go full circle.

Also wins the odd supermoto, motocross, Weston beach race, Erzberg Iron Mountain, Hell's Gate in Italy and he rode a fair portion of the Scott on flat tyres....

one more

another

another

It is a bit isn't it... I tried to post some more pictures of it but apparently I've reached my quota and it wouldn't let me. I'll try again tonight or put them in a new thread. You can't see just how slim it is around the seat area from these.

I know what you mean. I didn't look too closely to see exactly how it was done though, but what I could see was the headstock was definitely moved backwards. I could see this from the positioning of the headstock against the two bracing plates that are welded either side onto the headstock/frame. The headstock sat further back into them, noticeable from the line of weld running top to bottom down its length. There was less of the headstock visible forward of this weld as it sat further back. I know the person that owned it before the current owner and he said it definitely steered quicker. Was talking to Dave Renham at the show about modifying the steering on Bults as it happens and he said that the way they modified the steering was to cut a slot into the top of the top frame tube, under the forward end of the tank somewhere. Then, run the front wheel into a wall or whatever to push the wheel back until the desired angle was attained and then weld a piece into the V that has been opened in the frame. I asked about the downtube and apparently they just gave and bent accordingly. Woudn't want to take the engine out though - be like a coiled spring lettin go.... bet it was a bugger to get it back in as well. I know someone who modifies his cubs in this manner but it only requires the frame to be heated, not cut, as it is that soft it just bends when given the 'wall' treatment.... I rode an ex-Thorpe 340 (so I was told anyway) about 3 years ago and that had sharper steering and it rode very nicely. Still didn't turn as quick as my Ossa over the same sections, but much better than standard. Motor was beautiful too. No rear frame mods that I could see but a very nice bike which I tried to by on the spot but the owner was having none of it. I have a 340 now which needs a rebuild and it has the rear frame modification with the dampers moved forward although it's not a Commerfords bike. I've only ridden it around the lawn but the back end certainly seems to have more feel as opposed to the 'dead' feel I usually get from Bults. I'll post some pictures sometime.

another

As we're on a modified Bulto thread, thought you might like to see these pictures of a late 250. This bike, now owned by a friend of mine, was once owned by Hedley Cockshott and he rode it in the Sebac rounds in the mid 90s. It was modified for him by Keith Horsman, along the lines of the last Vesty bike, although it is not an exact copy as Hedley wanted specific changes to his own taste, such as the rear top shock mounts moved inwards to slim the width of the bike around the knees. The steering head was moved back a little too although the angle was unaltered. Also has a reed valve I think. Sorry about the picture quality, they came out a bit blurred, something I thought was impossible on a self-focus digital camera.... blame the operator

GIZZA5, that was just brilliant. I remember it all and I'm grinning away as it all comes back - except eating raw jelly - couldn't stand the stuff and still can't. Water balloons - what a weapon. Remember sneaking into the Odeon Saturday matinee in Brum city centre as a naughty bunch of 15 year olds and launching a full volley of balloon water bombs into the audience from behind the partition at the back of the seats in the stalls. The timing was perfect, the lights had gone down, there was a hushed silence from the kids and their mothers waiting for the film to start. The bombs sailed silently through the air in the dark, signalling contact with their targets with a series of dull splats, very quickly followed by a chorus of 'waaaaaaaahhhhhhh' piercing the silence as umpteen wailing kids got drenched. Must have scared the hell out of the poor little b*ggers. Unfortunately one of the 'lads' had taken things a bit too far and had launched one or two eggs as well as balloons. He then covered our escape with a few lit bangers as we fled out of the emergency exit. All seems pretty tame now but secretly, I'd love to do it again...

Hmmm It has got some looks in a strange sort of way. It looks neat and functional but not quite to my liking - although I don't dislike it. Definitely like to try it. Can't help thinking though that it looks like a twinshocker with the tank and seat missing.... As regards twinshock eligibilty I can't see why not. In my view, twinshock class exists as people still have a passion for the bikes that they rode in days gone by, from an era that many think was the begining of the end of traditional trials and the start of the hop and bop circus. Ideally therefore, twinshock means bikes from that era but I think this bike has been built in the true spirit of twinshocks and this is the key. It wouldn't have looked out of place at the time they were current, unlike if it was built around one of the current watercooled engines. There is nothing super trick about it. So although it is a new creation, I think it would happily sit alongside the original line of twinshockers. Will we see one in next year's Classic then..!!??

I mentioned it to our centre steward when they ran the first pre65 inter-centre. Asked about having a t/s class in it as well, or the possibility of a t/s event but it got nowhere. I would love to see it happen and I can see no reason why it shouldn't be well supported. Have you already had thoughts about this then Pitley and how to get the ball rolling? PS - Are you going to the Classic Experts on Saturday? Riding? Watching? If riding what are you on?

If you had a frame number you could try the Vintage Motorcycle Cub in Burton-upon-Trent to date your Beamish as they are pretty well up to date with information on most bikes. A dating certificate from them is sufficient to obtain an age related plate from DVLA. DVLA will only register with an age related plate from frame number. Q plates are also issued when a vehicle that is not new is being registered without proof of its age, such as certificate of newness or dating certificate. Beamishes were registered as new vehicles with no problem on correct letter plate as they would have had a certificate of newness from Suzuki as they were official conversions. Check the date it was registered, it may not have been done at the time of original purchase from a dealer. Once a Q plate has been issued to a vehicle it cannot be changed at a later date to an age related one, so I was once told, but the vagaries of DVLA are such that the rules are interpreted differently from area to area and even from individual to individual within those centres, so it may not be impossible. If that rule still stands however and you can get proof of age, one possibility is to just fill out the form and apply for a registration as though it had never been done. If you have a vehicle you know was registered but no longer have the V5 or record of the number for, DVLA can't/won't advise you of the registration number from the chassis number, even though it is obviously on their database. When I asked about what I could do to obtain a number for a bike I knew was registered, but I didn't know the number for, they said apply in the normal way. When I asked if a new application would bring up the old number, bearing in mind the chassis number would be the same, they said no..... If it did, you are only in the situation you are in now, still with a Q plate. For MOT, you only need a horn that emits a constant sound, no lights, speedo, mirrors etc. so just get a bicycle one from Halfords. 1973 is tax-exempt cut-off date.

I've had nothing through the post but found them on the Hillsborough club website. Can't remember the link but a search in google or whatever will find it.

I don't disagree with you on this point, if someone wants to ride a twinshock in a modern club or centre trial there is no reason not to have better brakes fitted as it isn't giving you a 'cheat' advantage over modern bikes. As we've said all along, it is up to individual clubs what they allow in that respect, or even in their own twinshock club championships. If they allow discs then that's fine, it's their decision. We're only concerned about what happens in the ACU Classic championship and one-off events staged purely for twinshocks and Pre65 such as the one being discussed in this forum. The club will make it clear what they expect. Obviously this should have no bearing whatsoever on what happens in Scotland.

Whoops - forgot to add the word disc in front of brakes there - although the original sentence still applies in part to some old bikes, like my Ossa for one...

Sorry but you're way off beam there. In certain conditions disc brakes will offer a significant advantage when you have riders of similar ability. The one who has discs has immediate and predictable stopping power with a gentle squeeze of the levers. Those with soggy wet drums have no idea how their brakes are going to react from one section to another, maybe they'll grab, maybe they'll just run on. If the section is such that you gain an advantage from say a nice slow controlled decent down a steep slippy bank instead of being barely in control with drums that won't hold, or able to fiddle on clutch and brakes through some nadgery where the bike would roll on a bit on soggy drums, what has rider skill got to do with that? Each of those scenarios can cause a loss of marks to bring drum braked bikes back under control. With discs all the chance and uncertainty of how the brakes will react is removed as modern discs are entirely predictable in their action. Big advantage. Why do you think they are fitting them? To be fair however, most agree that they shouldn't be allowed and won't fit them. It is only one or two - at the moment. Now I'm not criticising or rubbishing the example you have given, but it is a B route and I'm assuming relatively gentle sections where braking power wasn't a necessity, so it proves nothing. The ACU Classic sections are hard but sensible and offer a good challenge to competent riders on twinshocks and pre65. There are some ex-centre champions riding and some can still score highly in the Novogar series on their modern bikes. If discs are allowed in this series they will offer an advantage, no question, especially in the Phil King round.... Yhose who have ridden it will know what I mean..!! Twinshocks were ridden without brakes when they were current and they don't need them now as the inevitable result will be trials that evolve into what we have now in modern trials, tight up your own backside sections that bore you stupid, the very thing that those of us who ride the ACU Classic are trying to get away from. Fitting discs is just not in the spirit of why we ride the twinshock championship in my opnion, if we are to allow that we may as well just stick to modern trials. Outside of that championship people can do what they like, it's up to individual clubs, but within, it is essential that the regs ensure a level playing field.

Quick way to pull the tyre and tube into line without removing the wheel is to deflate and loosen security bolts right off as Dabster says, then with the bike on a stand and in 1st gear pull the tyre/wheel sharply in the direction it needs to go by holding just the tyre. When the slack in the chain is taken up and the wheel stops abruptly against the engine compression, the tyre should slide round on the rim. Only takes a couple of pulls (oooer missus) and the tube/valve will be back in line. Can only speak for myself obviously but I see nothing wrong with tubeless rims/tyres fitted to older bikes. Some tubed rims will actually take a tubeless tyre (with tube and security bolts of course) without it dropping off the rim. The akronts as used on Ossa/Bult etc. seem to. I've had tubeless IRC on the Ossa for years and they've never slipped off the rim. Majesty rim won't hold one though, it always drops off on both sides for about 8 - 10 inches.

John, Ellastone Offroad in Uttoxeter had them mmade from a copy of an original nos Yamaha guard. They come in white or yellow. They are a perfect copy as far as I can tell in injection moulded plastic, fitted my Majesty no problem and are very bendy, would be very hard to break one I think. Originally you could only buy them from him but I think he has farmed some out to other dealers now, so any you see for sale elsewhere I would guess come from the batch he had made (I notice Sammy Miller was advertising them recently) They are regularly on ebay, there is one on there at the moment. FYI Ellastone's ebay ID is robbossrichdick PS there are also some fibreglass one's on sale too just so's you're aware

At the moment, not many but they are starting to appear. I just think that as soon as a few have them it will start the ball rolling and then how long before sections get tighter to suit clutch/brake technique. If people want that they have modern bikes and trials. I've nothing against fitting modern forks as I don't actually think they give that much of an advantage over a pair of good period marzzochis for example, but a bike's braking capability can alter the way sections are laid out and you end up with tight nadgery crap instead of good flowing sections. And if they have to go through the hassle of making a drum fit modern forks, maybe they won't bother with them either. I favour the ban on discs and ensuring the bike must have been twinshock as original manufacture, otherwise where will it end? I can't imagine that much that can be done to a good twinshock to turn it into a fiddle bike but there are a lot of people out there cleverer than me in that respect who can. Hopefully, if it is nipped in the bud with these two regs it will prevent it going like pre65 as who would have forecast what has happened to the development of those. I've nothing against people riding with discs on a twinshock in modern events or club trials, different situation altogether and up to the clubs involved, but in proper twinshock trials or championships, if they have them, I wouldn't stop them riding them but it would be outside of the awards/points as you suggest. And therefore there is no point better riders trying to gain an advantage by having them.

Discs definitely need banning as when someone has a GasGas or Sherco etc. front end fitted it offers a huge advantage over a wet drum where braking is required and can be the difference between arriving at the bottom of a descent on a perfect line feet up (something I no longer remember...) or having a dab or two to to get things back under control. No reflection on rider ability, just superior brakes and a better score because of it. Also, imagine a part of a section which has been carefully plotted where the bike has to be turned across an obstacle such as rocks, roots or the begining of a camber leading onto a climb. The object being that the rider has to be perfectly on line whilst making the turn non-stop otherwise front or rear wheel will slide away causing a dab or more. This might even involve a famous Schreiber pivot turn... Now imagine the rider with the modern disc who hits the front brake and hops the back over (which is a stop) and then with one flick of the front has turned the bike 90 degrees (still stopped) and ridden the the obstacle in two straight lines thereby removing the very nature of the hazard intended by the section plotter. Although forward motion has ceased and the rider has stopped the bike to achieve the turn, we know that the observer will not mark it as a 5 and the rider will get away with it, even though the trial is under no-stop rules. None of this is really possible with an old spongy drum brake and riders will be less inclined to try it. Allow a disc and it will be used to its full potential in every way possible, all of them outside the rules and spirit of no-stop riding.

And must have been a twinshock as original manufacture? Otherwise they'll be turning up on those mono Yams with twinshocks fitted. Don't think anything else is necessary apart from that and no discs.