woody

Seems to get better and better with each vid. Fantastic natural talent. One of the best riders not to be WTC champion? Mainly through not having the right level of support? Always seemed a more naturally gifted rider than Lampkin. Be nice to see him mop up everything this year.

Honestly, there really is very very little chance of that happening. Just take your bike and enjoy your day's riding. At worst, someone might say 'you need to enter that class on that bike, not that calss' - but most unlikely. Reading some of the comments on here, it does seem that people are still misunderstanding what the situation is. As I've mentioned before, I'm not hearing any real complaints from riders about other riders' bikes - unless I'm reading the situation wrongly.

The Godden frame is a bit slimmer across the seat tubes, so a normal TY250 seat may need playing with to fit. If you have a Yam framed Majesty there should be no problem. You have to use your own brackets and sometimes these are rusted in and a bugger to remove. Depends what is wrong with your seat obviously (assuming you have one) but if the base unit is still ok why not just get it recovered. Cost is usually around £30 - 40 for a new foam and cover on a trials size seat.

I referred to the E & D spec and again Tam, you've taken the whole thing out of context. Read what I said. I have no issue with modified bikes. I don't care who rides what There is a place for modified, modernised and standard bikes in the trials world - or there should be, personal choice and all that There isn't a place in the Scottish for something considered a special - there is only one set of eligibility criteria, no either / or. That is a fact. Clubs throughout the UK have their own rules for eligibility. On the whole they vary very little. They can differ from E & D. In most events, if bikes don't conform to the 'standard' class they go in the specials - but not in the Scottish as there isn't one If someone wants to ride in the Scottish it is no use building a bike that conforms to local club rules which may differ from E & D eligiblility criteria as they won't accept it in the Scottish Therefore if you want to ride in the Scottish you have to have a bike that complies to E & D rules If your bike complies with the Sottish rules it will be fine to ride anywhere else whether standard or specials class. So, if someone is thinking of buying or building a Pre65 bike and wants to ride the Scottish on it, what does it make sense to do? Build it to their spec or to local club spec? That is all I said. No criticism of anyone My criticism is the folly that would make the original 50 years old FB in the picture a 'special' if it was fitted with say an 'unacceptable' front wheel, (and therefore also inelligible for the Scottish) whereas the brand new modified and modernised 2012 bike is considered fine. My view is that there should be room for both but that's all it is - my view. My point to the debate is there is no point trying to standardise rules across all parties when you have one trial, considered the premier Pre65 trial of the year and which over 400 people aspire to ride, that has a seperate rule sheet. It's a straightforward enough - no criticism of individuals intended.

Didn't question that, but what do you make of the example I gave in regards to what is and isn't classed a special. Do you honestly think there is any sense in it?

No problem with that, their club, their rules. Just didn't see why this one gent had to make a comment about my bike, the insinuation seeming to be that it shouldn't have been there. No comment about the brand new Cub and James parked next to it of course. Do you honestly not find this interpretation of what is or isn't a special utter nonesense? What is your view on the example I gave earlier? See below "Under the current rules, both the original FB and modern James in the pictures are considered Pre65 and would compete in the same class. If you put an old Ossa front wheel (for example) in the original bike it would have to go in the specials class, whilst the brand new 2012 specification bike stays in the Pre65 class"

Charlie, I realise you have the interests of trials at heart but with the best will in the world, it wouldn't be feasible to try and implement this and it would never happen at 99% of events, maybe the odd national. I'm convinced you're trying to find solutions to problems that don't exist. If you get out to some of the Miller and PJ1 rounds this year, events where there is no scrutineering, even the BMCA events, you will see huge varieties of bikes with all sorts of mods but I'll wager you'll hear no disgruntled murmuring from any riders - unless I'm reading the situation / atmosphere at these events very badly. I've heard one gripe in all the years I've ridden them and that was last year. It was a spectator from Yorkshire Classic who was watching the Reliance. He was looking at my bike parked at a section (the BSA in the picture) and I heard him remarking to another spectator that it wouldn't be eligible for YC events because of the Grimeca front wheel. I let it go as I wasn't bothered but that is literally the only gripe I've heard in all this time (had to be my bike didn't it... )

Hi Javier, there is no problem having a different opinion about this as it is all part of the discussion. But the only reason I disagree with you is because I spend many weekends riding in many classic and Pre65 trials all over the UK, so I know a lot of riders who own and like to build Pre65 bikes. As Paul mentioned in his comment, when talking about building Pre65 bikes, very often the subject mentioned is the Pre65 Scottish because if the riders want to enter it, then they have to build their bike to the rules of that event. Although there are many events in the UK that support all sorts of Pre65 bikes in all different stages of modification, the Scottish doesn't do this, so the rules of the other events don't matter. They won't make your bike right for Scotland. There is no specials class, just one set of rules and your bike must be built to those rules. However, if your bike is right for Scotland there will be no problem with rules at any other event in the UK. With so many people wanting to ride Scotland, this is why it is the standard for so many people considering buying or building a Pre65 bike. But I agree, I don't want to make this a topic about Scotland itself, but it is unavoidable in just this one matter of rules. But that is all. My own opinion on Pre65 is the same as I have said before. There are events all over the UK that cater for all types of Pre65 bikes and from what I can see, most riders seem happy with the way things are. The only thing I find crazy is what makes somethiing a special and what doesn't. Under the current rules, both the FB and James in the pictures are both considered Pre65 and would compete in the same class. If you put an old Ossa front wheel (for example) in the original bike it would have to go in the specials class, whilst the brand new 2012 specification bike stays in the Pre65 class....... Crazy PS What a coincidence, out of all the James, the bike I find a picture of is your bike...

Well, I wouldn't want to ride a standard Brit bike week in week out ( I used to have a standard and I mean standard, B40, so I have experience...) But, I love trials and am usually game for riding anything (er, within reason) and having ridden a couple of rigids for a bit of fun in the past, I would certainly have a go at the Scottish on one, a big one I mean, 350 or 500 sort, just to see how I got on. I wouldn't want to do it every year though, those guys have my admiration. But once, just to see, for the experience.

Just to pick up on those two points. The fact that they don't work that well (and that is just about everything as most of it was 20 years old design/technology even then...) is why everyone began updating them with modern parts. And there you have it in a nutshell. For original spec, tyres would be the only modern concession. Hagon do old style shocks, chrome rims, original hubs are all available etc. Cost can't come into it given what is spent on the modernised versions, you'd come nowhere near. But what would you rather have out of the two FB bikes in the pictures. I know which one I'd be riding... As for the Scottish sections, it's subjective I know, but it isn't that hard a trial in terms of section severity. The original FB in the picture would do it comfortably enough. You would drop more marks on it than the modernised bike but it would cope well enough. You'd be surprised. The Pre65 isn't as hard on the rider or bike as the 6 day from the 60s.

Will it really make any difference now to Pre65 trials to try and draft some standardised rules? Is it even possible when you have clubs in all centres who have their own interpretation of what they think works, ACU and AMCA clubs, national events, bespoke, one-off events - and then there is the Pre65 Scottish. Like it or not, anyone building, modifying or buying a Pre65 bike has to look to the Pre65 Scottish as the yard stick because if they want to ride it (and over 400 riders each year do) then that is the spec your bike must conform to. Go anywhere else in the UK and there is a class that will accomodate, either Pre65, Pre70 or specials. The Scottish has no specials class, you either conform or not. It is the driver for how people build their bikes. As I've mentioned before, it seems only this trial that causes the problems. Anywhere else you go, Miller rounds, PJ1 rounds, individual club trials, I very rarely (can't remember ever) hearing complaints between competitors about another's bike. So, is there a problem? Modernised bikes have been the norm for 15 years or so now, the terms trick, cheat or fiddle no longer apply. No-one is trying to fool anyone anymore that their bike is standard 'underneath the clothes'. We all know how they are built now. Is it really an issue? The last PJ1 round that I rode, there were full on modernised bikes running in the same class as some fairly standard bikes. As you can imagine, the riders at the sharp end of the results are on modernised bikes, the riders back from that have a mix of modernised and standard. No-one complains (to the best of my knowledge) The same riders will win if everyone was on a standard bike (or maybe they wouldn't as half the entry wouldn't be there....) So, how do you now categorise a special? Take a look at the pictures below. An original spec (I think) Francis Barnett followed by a modern equivalent. Both of these bikes would compete in the same class, Pre65 (or Pre70 depending on club / event etc) No disparity there then... Now take this bike (my old C15) This bike has an original 1959 frame (ie: bloody heavy) Disregard the front end for the moment, assume it is the same spec as the modern FB above, therefore compliant. Based upon some regulations, this bike couldn't compete in the Pre65/70 class because the rear subframe has been altered (lowered and narrowed) and the shock mounts moved. That's all and nothing that couldn and wasn't done back in its era. Now, is it just me or am I alone in banging my head up the wall because of the sheer folly of this. The FB, built from new replica lightweight parts is Pre65 and the BSA is a special. Am I being unbreasonable in my view on this, am I missing something? It's all about 'silhouette', is that what I'm missing? Yes, it obvious that the modern FB looks just like the original, you'd never tell them apart going up pipeline... Back to the BSA and we'll take the front end. Ossa forks, painted black, look Pre65 as they are just straight tubes. Yokes, alloy billet look-a-likes. Front wheel an old Grimeca dug from the shed. If the fins are machined off the hub and it is polished it looks just like a Rickman or one of Millers new billet patterns. But it isn't acceptable becuase it's Italian, just like the fork internals and ignition on the modern FB. It isn't as effective as the front end on the modern FB but it is considered 'special'. To me there is just no sense in these rules. As I've said before (many times...) I don't have a single problem with the modernised bikes but the rules are crazy. When a brand new bike can be considered Pre65 and a 50 year old bike is a special just because someone has modified the subframe and shock position (modified, not modernised) something is wrong. Really, it is. If something is to be done do it properly. If a bike has ANY component on it that wasn't available before 1965 then it goes in the specials class. That's it in a nutshell. Modernised in any way means it's no longer standard, it's in the specials, it's no longer Pre65 spec. Scrutineering, if any was done, would be easier as the only bikes you'd have to examine would be the standard class. The specials would be self-policing as if anyone turned up with a Sherco front end the others would have something to say about it. The bikes can't really go any further now anyway... I have no vested interest in this and honestly don't care which direction it goes in as I know what my own solution to it will be. I'm just trying to play devil's advocate and illustrate what a nonsense this eligibility criteria is. Personally I'd leave things as they are, I can't see that a new set of rules will change anything. As I've said before, Scotland is the driver for bike spec as they don't take 'specials' (well, only about 7/8ths of the entry) And next year there may be a minimum seat height to worry about in that event, so don't go drafting any rules just yet...

Standard gearing works fine in sections and gives 80mph... Can't remember what it was now though, but order off Birkett and he will know.

I know what you mean in terms of appearance, not my cup of tea at all, that one. Don't like the white tank, blue frame combination, or the rear silencer. If I was going to modify that and was clever enough I'd make the 'box' section half as deep. Once the baffles are removed and replaced with conventional internals it doesn't need to that big. The 'less blinged' Puma bikes look much nicer. Rear hub is a 247 Cota I think but I've no idea why the torque arm is arranged like that. My 340 came with a 247 wheel in and it wasn't like that... Big sprocket is a mystery too. Front yokes are Pursang/Alpina I think, I'm waiting to try some on my other 340 but the top ring locating pin in the piston has somehow moved itself into the piston whilst it has been sitting on the bench for the last 6 months so now the ring won't locate. All attempts to tease it back out have failed so I'm now at a loss. Trying the Alpina yokes, which are parallel, is therefore on hold... By frame mods, do you mean the swingarm pivot? To be honest, with a good set of modern shocks, the back end works really well. I always found the back end of the Bultos dead in feeling. With the Magicals on my 340 it is massively improved with lots of feel. Not sure the pivot mods are required these days with modern shocks and tyres. Only change I'd make is cut the rear loop off 'B' style and ideally get a swingarm made in square section, like the 'B' model, as I really, really, hate the look of those 'A' swingarms...

Try also John Collins, ACU man and who posts on here at times, also runs JC Mtorcycles in Port Talbot. Lots of used Bulto parts.

Yes, you're right, I was thinking 199 for some reason and writing 191... Too tired, too much work at the moment...

The 191 is a 1978/9 model, not '77. Red tank, mudguards, sidepanels, silver frame, black engine, forks, hubs, polished brake plates and yokes. They were nearing the end so almost everything was being painted now, not polished alloy = cheaper? I'm sure they had red mudguards from new, alloy were on the previous models '76 and '77. Some pictures here http://www.ataq.qc.ca/galerie/index.php?folder=/Mus%E9e/Bultaco/&page=1

Is this just for the cars though? I made a mistake in my previous answer, a speedo doen't need to be fitted at all for the bike MOT (unless regs have been amended for 2012 as they have for cars)

Speedo doesn't have to work for the MOT (a farce but a real bonus) just needs to be fitted but it must be in working order when you're on the road The balls will be a standard size and you might get them from a bicycle shop. Or you can replace the head bearings completely with a taper roller set from Pyramid Bearings for about

Not sure from your post whether you want to fit lights because you want them, or whether you think you have to have them to be legal. The daytime MOT doesn't require lights of any kind. If they tell you that you do or that you need a rear reflector they are wrong, you don't. Nor indicators. Just a horn and a speedo. The horn can be a battery operated bicycle horn from any bike shop. If you want lights, a brake light switch would be easy to obtain from a breakers as they are just a spring loaded pull switch with one end on the pedal, the other to a fixed point on the frame. For other lights just look on ebay, there are loads to choose from such as aftermarket enduro bike lights or sometimes original Montesa lights will come up. You also need a switch, either a modern multi switch (enduro again or from a modern trials bike as most people remove them) or an original type which again appear on ebay from time to time. You need to know if the power is 6v or 12v and you'll need a wiring diagram from somewhere for the colour coding of the wires. Your magneto should have wires off it for a lighting circuit. To be honest though you will be taking your life in your hands if you go out in the dark on a trials bike. The lights will not be anything like modern lights and when the revs drop so does the power = no lights....

A bit of hysteria here chaps - would there have been any if if it had just been an enquiry about improving the forks without mentioning any options? It's the 38mm that has lit the blue touch paper... First off there is nothing wrong with trying to improve the 175 fork action and the better riders in my club were trying to do just that back in the 70s. Second point - it depends on how you ride, what level, how hard and how hard you work the suspension. I don't mean it in a derogatory sense but most classic club trials are nowhere near as hard as the trials the bikes were used in back in their era and the suspension won't get worked anywhere near as hard now as then. Even the C and B routes in modern trials don't give the forks that much trouble. If you're riding it in modern clubman nationals such as Lakes 2 day, Manx 2 day then yes, they are going to get worked hard and their shortcomings highlighted. I'm guessing as you're asking the question you won't be riding the bike in the latter. So, for you average classic trials or C or B route in modern, your best option (and cheapest) is to get the forks working to their optimum. Originally, like most 70s Jap forks, the spring rate and damping were a bit on the soft side. As the springs, assuming they are the originals, are now 30 odd years old you will benefit from replacing them with new ones. In your place I would fit Magical progressive springs. I have them in my Bultaco and they work well, stronger than the originals but not overly so. They work well on smaller obstacles, are strong enough to keep the forks returning on multiple/consecutive obstacles and take bigger hits well. I'm assuming they'd offer the same ride in the Yamaha. They're

If I ran a club or was responsible for the rules I would let the bike compete with the disc. It is how it was back in 1967, it is a period fitment, it cannot be excluded. I'm sure there was another bike around this time that experimented with a dis but I can't recall which one. There are always going to be small anomolies and exceptions to rules, or the norm. Situations like these have to be looked at realistically. Anyone could have ridden that bike with the disc fitted in the 60s, that is sufficient to allow it. It is a period fitment not a modern addition. The purpose of banning discs in general is to prevent people putting modern disc brakes on their bikes which would give a huge advantage in machine control over drum brakes. The rule simply has to be that if a disc was fitted as a standard fitment, then that same specification disc only can be used. Modern replacements are not allowed. You wouldn't really want to compete with it usiing that disc arrangement though would you - the disc on its own looks as heavy as a modern Cub.... It's like the Cantilever Ossa. It competed in 1975/6 and was availble to a few riders. If those bikes still exist they should be allowed to compete again alongside bikes from that era, just as they did - as long as the same specification system is used and not converted to a modern arrangement. It's still nowhere near as competitive as later twinshocks and probably not much better than the standard bike is with modern shocks fitted. Making it compete against Monoshock Yams, TR34 Betas and 305 Fantics just lacks common sense to me.

I thought this existed already. There was (still is?) a national championship called the Rickman British Bike championship that was to cater for the more standard bikes with sections that were more like those of long ago. It was British bikes only. I don't know if it is still run or whether it dwindled through lack of support. The events were mainly located from the Midlands to the South, not sure there were any held in the north. There are also a number of LDT events run, aren't they suitable for the older sandard spec bikes? And there are a few big rigids in the Miller series each year so if they can cope, standard springer bikes can surely handle the easy route. But where are they? Being 52 I never rode in the 60s so never experienced the sections of that era first hand. However, I have seen some of the news footage on you-tube and Pathe news and those I've seen didn't look that easy considering the bikes they were riding. Some riders were using the clutch on turns... One section featured quite a tight uphill turn on a grass camber and no-one cleaned it. I've no idea what events they were but they looked harder than the easy route on the Miller rounds.

I know what you mean. It shows though, how modernised bikes have become the norm as mods like this are no longer hidden away. He's actually way behind the times with this one though. I know of bikes that had Beta clutches fitted over 10 years ago.

Just had a look at the results and the two riders who tied for first Pre65 (and overall) are hardly mugs.... they are in the top few Pre65 riders in the country so the result isn't really a surprise. Their bikes are more competitive than most pre80 standard twinshocks but not later bikes like 200/240/300 Fantic, late model SWM, Armstrong, Aprilia etc. Having said that, the event was a low scoring one for the winners in each class and the result would be more a test of concentration as opposed to who had the better bike. A set of 38mm forks on a twinshock wouldn't offer any advantage. To illustrate (and this is the only reason I mention it) I came out top overall on the B route of a modern trial at the weekend on my Bultaco. Obviously all the modern bikes have at least 38mm forks, more power, better rear suspension, brakes etc. However, the sections were within the capabilities of the Bultaco, consequently the superior performance of the other bikes made no difference. The sections weren't hard enough to exploit the difference. Had I ridden the A route - different matter... I lost 9 marks, and 5 of those (not a 5) were down to an erratic and sticking front brake. The remaining 3 and 1 were down to my mistakes. The bike (dodgy front brake excepted) could have cleaned the trial. Had I had discs, or at least a front disc, I would have halved my score. Out of all the modern mods you can make to a twinshock, discs would be by far the biggest advantage, way more than modern forks. I don't like them personally and prefer them not fitted, but 38mm forks add virtually nothing in terms of performance advantage in the standard of events the bikes are ridden in. Discs however, would and thankfully they are banned. And in reality - how many of those twinshocks actually had 38mm forks?