woody

The Armstrong was branded Can-Am in the US and Canada. They are the same bike The SWM is a different bike altogether but has the Rotax engine in common with the later Armstrong/Can-Am bikes. See here for pictures http://www.ataq.qc.ca/galerie/index.php?folder=/Mus%E9e/

Worcester - yes, I that is the one I couldn't remember. Birmingham, Shrewsbury and Worcester - all marked for closure. Very helpful if you live in the Midlands...

No, I don't think anyone actually said what it was, I just remember a few places mentioning it when I was trying to book up as one after another was full. Thinking back, I wouldn't be surprised if they meant your trial..... Just thought it may be something to bear in mind and for people to book up early, just in case whatever it was, it is on again - if it was ever on in the first place....

Yes, he'd begun to chalk up a few good wins at that point. I seem to remember one section at Hawkstone that was a really difficult full on climb where he stopped near the top and somehow bumped and reversed it back down for another go (reversing ok back then) Except the reason he stopped was because his throttle cable had broken and he only realised when he tried a second attempt - no throttle... Love the bit in this video when he jumps the table on the patio and knocks the bottle over. And the nose wheelie down the steps, and the... well, all of it... Another win in the SSDT isn't beyond possibility either (haven't looked at the entry list and assuming he's riding it) Barring injury I'm predicting a good year for Grimbo.

They may check the postcode and if you're outside their catchment area they may send you packing. Again - depends if they know their procedures Three of the bigger ones, Birmingham, Shrewsbury and one other (can't remember) are marked for closure so who knows how that will affect the staff's attitude. Not good for us though as those two are our local offices. Where we're supposed to go when they are gone who knows...

My mate has registered two 320 Hiro Aprilias using a dating letter from Vintage Motorcycle club - Aprilia obviously still exist but no insistence on a dating certificate from them. That is just total crap - unless it's because your bike is already Q plated. The DVLA once told me that a bike cannot be re-registered from a Q plate. The problem with the DVLA is that none of them have a clear understanding of their own procedures and you could ask two people sitting at the same desk a question and get 4 different answers. Never mind from office to office... This is the problem faced with any government office (or any office of any kind - I've worked in a good few...) As for a customs certificate, that's crap as well. I did a Yamaha no problem with just the dating certificate (which also had the 'doesn't comply with traffic regulations' bumph on it) See paragraph above for DVLA knowledge of their own procedures. Print their own web page and take it with you...

When I rode a couple of years ago there was a big cycling event of some sort being run on the same weekend and getting accomodation was difficult with the number of people attending and spectating that event. Does anyone know if that event is running again this year on the same weekend. I'd like to ride again this year but depends on work so may be a late decision which could make accomodation a headache again

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