woody

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?

Hi Javier, it is ok, there is no problem really, it seems there has been some misunderstanding but everything is ok. I think there will never be agreement on Pre65 and that there are always going to be two groups. Those that like riding the bikes in original condition and those that like to modify. There is no reason that both cannot continue. Riders themselves will decide which group they want to belong to. I think I am right to say that in Spain, Pre65 class has only become more common in the last few years. In the UK there has been a Pre65 class since about 1975 and a lot has happened in the years that followed, so maybe if you know the history of it you can understand a bit more why the bikes have become so modified. In the 1970s, to me the 'golden age' of trials, the 'Spanish three' were the bikes to ride. Also there were Honda, Yamaha, Suzuki and Kawasaki, followed by the first of SWM, Fantic. There were also a few British bikes still being produced, Greeves/Puch, Dalesman, Cotton Miarelli, Wassell, DMW, CCM. But if you were serious, Bultaco Ossa or Montesa were the bikes to have in the 70s. At some time during this period some Pre65 trials were organised, not on a national level, just small trials for a few enthusiasts. Maybe they were riders from the 50s and 60s era who were getting older and could no longer compete at the level needed to ride every week in competition (remember only one route then, no sections with 2, 3 or 4 routes) Trials had moved on and were more difficult as the performance of the Spanish bikes was far superior to the old British machines. Sections were harder than they were 10 years before. Perhaps they just wanted to continue riding for fun and decided to recreate the atmosphere of when they were younger and decided to ride again on British bikes that had been left abandoned in garages since the invasion of the Bultaco in 1965. Therefore the cut off date of 1965 was introduced in order to keep it British bikes only. These trials took place almost unheard of until the 1980s when the Scottish Pre65 was born. Originally the idea was to have ex-factory riders take part on the bikes they used to ride back in the 50s and 60s, the most famous being Sammy Miller on his Ariel. Within a few years the popularity of this event grew and more and more riders were entering, including some very good ex-factory riders such as Dave Thorpe. These riders were still very competitive and wanted only to win, just as they still do now... They look for every advantage possible and this is where the modifications to the bikes began, just like they had when they had factory bikes. At the same time as this - around 1988/89 modern trials were becoming very difficult and involved 100% trick riding. Fortunately a new ACU national series was introduced for classic bikes in about 1990 with 3 classes, twinshock, Pre65 unit and Pre65 pre-unit. This series had a big following and we always had over 100 riders at these trials, about 65% twinshock and 35% Pre65. So now there were two events for Pre65 riders to look forward to, the Pre65 Scottish and the national championship (called the Sebac series) The rider to beat in Pre65 was Dave Thorpe on his Cub. Even then there were rumours of modifications to the bike that made it perform better. Other riders joined the series and the competitive level meant they were all improving their bikes looking for an advantage over each other. In 1993/4 Mick Andrews began to ride and began to develop his James. Now we had some famous names and ex-champions and they all want to win. Therefore they continue to modify their bikes. Ordinary riders who manage to try some of these bikes like them very much as they are so much better than their standard bikes, so they begin to modify theirs as well. Rules are amended to try and prevent too much modification but some people are clever engineers and they hide new parts in old casings. You only have to watch bikes perform over rocks to see that they didn't have 1965 suspension... By now, it is still only about 1995. So now there are two prestigious titles to be won. The Scottish Pre65 and the national Sebac championship. The bikes continue to get modified and developed and the Scottish bring in their own rules to try and stop things moving too far. But by now it is too late as many bikes have now been modified. It is decided modifications to modernise the performance of the bikes are allowed but they must retain a period look, which meant that components fitted must resemble parts from 1965 or before. Slowly but surely the bikes get better and better and specialists begin manufacturing new parts to fit to the bikes so that it is not just the top riders that can have the modernised bikes, anyone can buy the parts to modify their own bikes. So from there, we are where we are today. A whole industry supplying parts to make your old bike perform better or even build a brand new one from new parts. It is what a lot of people want and the proof is that the specialists who make the parts are always very busy. You can't argue with that. Hope this explains why things have reached the point they have Javier. This is how Pre65 has evolved. It is evolution due to demand. It is clear though that unmodified bikes still have a following and I really can't see why there is a fuss about modifying the bikes. The choice is simple. Ride what you enjoy. There is no reason events cannot continue for both groups, modified or standard, either as a combined event with classes for both or seperate events. If some clubs really are going to get fussy about specials, modified or modernised bikes, the only answer is for anything that is not standard specification to go in a specials class. Modified is modified, whatever it is, if it isn't a pre65 part. No exceptions. What must be considered above all else though is that organised trials are a competition. Some are more serious than others, no doubt, and when you get to the standard of the Scottish or Manx classic there are some good riders who are in it to win it - nothing else. These riders want the best bike possible to give them the best advantage possible. Just as they did back in the old days, just as Sammy Miller did with GOV 132. It's where it all started. If they were all happy to ride standard unmodified bikes we'd still be riding British bikes now, the Bultaco invasion woould never have happened, would it.

Not sure if you're serious or not....

But you are saying that under stop allowed it wouldn't have happened 'Stop' allowed virtually eliminates this inconsistency This isn't true. In that specific section maybe not but how many times have we seen under stop allowed a rider go unpenalised for rolling back, either intentionally or otherwise. If marks are close between that rider and another, an observing decision can still cost someone a place/win. Imagine rider A cleans the last section of the trial correctly and is now 3 points behind rider B. Rider B makes his attempt, fails to clear a rock, root or is stuck on the lip of a bank - whatever - and puts a foot down to pull the bike over. Whilst doing this the bike rocks back and forth as the rider attempts to wrestle it over and finally succeeds. It's a 5 but how often is it givem. More commonly a 1 is given, sometimes a 3. Without the 5 rider B wins the trial. Stop allowed can be subject to inconsistencies in observing every bit as non-stop.

In the end it depends on how serious you are with your riding, how competitive you want to be and how hard you ride. If you want a good competitive shock for a reasonable price, that works well and has a proven record, then buy steel bodied Falcons. I'm not sure of the price in the US but here in the UK they are pretty well unbeatable in terms of performance for price. I can't comment on WP as never tried them. Again, no idea of price of Betors in the US but here, the alloy betors (not really alloy at all, only the end caps, the bodies are steel) are more expensive than Falcons and not as good. The old style black body Betors are slightly cheaper than Falcons but not as good. As for origianl OEM Betors, there is no way they will be as good as Falcons.

I'd just like to make clear one thing, knowing how things can be taken seriously out of context on these bloody forums... I am not criticising observers in the comments I made. Just illustrating that observing can be inconsistent whatever the rules - it is after all subjective and down to one individual's interpretation. The rules themselves play no part in it. I wouldn't like to see it turn into a rambling criticism of observing. Without them, consistent, inconsistent or otherwise, it's game over. They make mistakes, just like riders do - going the wrong way, missing flags, riding the wrong route, forgetting to turn fuel on, silly dabs etc etc.

Most, maybe all of the original tanks had cut-outs for the fork legs, so that is normal. As I mentioned before there is no guarantee that your engine is the orginal one for the frame, obviously that doesn't matter in the slightest, it just doesn't specifically date your bike as 1974. However, all the frames from 1971/2 original MAR up to the last 1979 green MAR had the same frame. You can tell the model (as long as the bike hasn't been modified...) from the position of the top shock mount (although later models will have the number stamped on) If it sits right in the angle of where the rear frame loop meets the frame upright it is a MK1 or MK2 frame (they're the same) On the MK3 the shocks were angled so if the top mount is level with the bottom mounting lug for the sidepanel, it is a MK3. On the green models the top mount was moved back up slightly so if it sits between the two sidepanel mounts it is from a green bike (called TR77 with the black frame and TR77 Verde with the green frame which was the last of the MAR models) Swingarms came in 2 lengths and had the lower shock mount in different positions depending on the model but again there is no guarantee it has the original swingarm. The MK1 model had a short swingarm and you can tell that type by the shock mount. If it sits right in front of the rear wheel spindle it is a MK1. These date from 1971 - late 1973. The MK2 had a longer swing arm (1 1/4") On these the shock mount sits about 1" or so in front of the rear wheel spindle. These date from 1974/5 but there is some cross over in parts between late MK1 and early MK2 models so you could have bits of both on either (there were some engine differences too) The MK3 and green framed bikes had the same length swingarm as the MK2 (I think) but the shock mounts were moved back over the spindle to account for the lowered top mounts on the frame. There may be another variation on the swingarm but can't remember off the top of my head. So, if your frame matches the description of the MK1 / MK2 frame but has no frame number, it is almost certainly a MK1, as I'm pretty sure that from the MK2 the frames were stamped. Another site with some useful pictures is here http://www.ataq.qc.ca/galerie/index.php?folder=/Mus%E9e/Ossa/

That's also rubbish. Have you never seen what riders get away with under stop and hop rules? - Going backwards - Stopping on the front wheel and letting the bike roll backwards when landing to gain a few more inches - Hopping bikes sideways both left and right one wheel at a time or both wheels but all the time moving the bike backwards against the direction of the section - Rocking backwards and forwards when sumped out on logs rocks etc. when they've failed to get over one - Rocking backwards and forwards on roots up a bank which they've failed to get over first time - Stopped with a foot or feet down whilst moving the back wheel around with the heel of their boot under the swingarm. All the above happen week in week out and riders aren't give the 5 they should have. Is that the fault of the rules or the observers? At least under no-stop you can't stop in a section with both feet down asking the observer which way to go or have a prolonged discussion with your mate about which gear is best to tackle the next part of the section. That is permissible in stop and hop...

Rubbish. You're just using this to moan about no-stop. It has nothing to do with the rules, it's entirely down to the observer. The observer was giving other riders fives for stopping, only he/she knows why they gave that score to Alex, who has benefitted by 3 marks, not been deprived of a win. If you saw him stop how can you say he went clean all day? You're letting your dislike of no-stop cloud your judgement.

That excellent summary nicely demonstrates how no-stop rules require a different thought process to stop allowed. Your line has to be thought out before you enter the section in contrast to stop and hop where it is possible to stop and realign for every mistake you make and still clean the section. Make the mistake under no stop and 90% of the time you will need at least a dab to recover. Sometimes it is necessary to recognise where you may find trouble and plan a rescuing dab beforehand if required. Hang on too long for the clean and even footing won't save you, you end up with a 5. Trials isn't about cleaning every section, it's about losing less marks than anyone else.

If it is a 1972 model it is a MK1 MAR and I don't think they began to stamp the frames with the frame number until 1973/4. Instead they had a sticker on the headstock which very rarely is still in place these days (or at least the UK bikes seemed to be like this) I have a MK1 and there is no number on the frame, it had the sticker. I have another MK1 frame with no number and I recently sold another which had no number. The engine and frame numbers matched when new (the engines are prefixed M and the chassis B ) There is no way of knowing whether it has the original engine of course but the engine can be dated from the number by using the chassis number reference charts that are available http://ossa.2y.net/ossa/reference/ossa-frame-nr.html The MK1 had a fibreglass bashplate and these used to be availble from Ossa specialists in the USA if you wanted to use a fibreglass one. Personally I'd look for a used alloy one, they come up on ebay UK reasonably often if you can't find the unsold one mentioned above. http://www.rpmsfiberglass.com/ If you find your ignition is no good and don't want to buy a new one, Bradford Ignitions (aka Motoplat UK - but now based in Spain) can repair Motoplat stators http://www.uk-motoplat.com/

Tam, I'm not sure I have much left to say on this topic as for one, I am still pretty disgusted with the actions of some people and two, rational discussion on a forum isn't possible on a 'big' topic - just look at the no-stop debate. It ends up personal, comments are misunderstood or taken out of context, people don't read comments properly, nothing gets resolved. The Scottish aside, I see nothing wrong with the way things are at the moment. Modified bikes have been the norm for two decades now, yet they can still be referred to as 'cheat' or 'trick' at times. That was only the case when it began and one or two riders hid modifications to mask the advantage they gave. Those days are long past, we are where we are, it's evolved and its normal. There is room for both sets of bikes, modified or standard, whichever individuals prefer. It is up to individual clubs how they handle it. As I mentioned before I hear no moaning from riders about other rider's bikes and none of the events I've ridden at over the years have machine examining, and that includes the various national championships (maybe a couple of times at one event only) No-one's feathers get ruffled. A unified standard for rules is a nice idea but never will it happen. Who would ever agree anything? Twinshocks are a different matter. Even the oldest ride pretty well and as such they don't really need altering to make them enjoyable to ride or more competitive. Different situation from the British bikes in their standard form. Footrests and position and that's about it. There are already rules in place in the national championships to prohibit discs and converted monos. It is very rare these days to see someone with a converted mono (I just do not see the point personally, it's a nothing bike) In the main it has been pretty well self-policed by the riders themselves and the hysteria that seems to be building about 'super twinshocks' is more on the net than in the woods. If people would take a close look at some of these 'highly modified' twinshocks (there have been 3 or 4 that I can think of)and see them for what they are, they would realise that the most dramatic change is to their appearance. The performance is not really enhanced significantly, the biggest change in that area being the head angle. I've yet to see a 'super twinshock' win an event. Later reed motors, 38mm forks (although I'm not keen on that one) aren't really an issue. Obviously there are always exceptions and there will always be one or two people who push things and take the p***, just to wind others up, but that goes for all walks of life, not just trials.

First two sections are a real turn off and I nearly ended my viewing there. That waterfall section... Now that is proper.

Right - time to take stock of this. Having now spoken to someone about this subject, it's apparent that what started out as a discussion about Pre65 rules and regulations may have turned into a bit of a witch hunt on some people in the trade. I have to say right now that I am pretty sickened by this, even moreso if a discussion I have been part of has been the cause. It seems that some people are taking exception to what is being done to bikes in the Pre65 scene and having a go at those they deem responsible. This is not only cowardly, it is totally unjust. The only people who are 'responsible' for 'what has happened' with Pre65 are the riders who want to modify their bikes. It is called freedom of choice to modify your bike if you so wish. Current regulations allow it and always have. Some riders are talented engineers who can make components themselves. Others can barely strike a match to light a blow torch and therefore approach other people to do the work for them. From this, a cottage industry of talented people has arisen over the years who make some beautiful components with which people can modify their bikes. They are wonderful examples of British engineering at its best and show what may have been possible all those years ago if lazy, uninspired, narrow-minded management had allowed people's ideas to get onto the drawing board and into production. No matter how specialised these bikes are today, the hub of them all is still a British engine from the 50/60s. A lot of what is being done now could have been done then. The 250 Villiers engine is an excellent powerplant with simple improvements to exhaust, ignition and carburettor making a huge difference to how it performs. The basic lump is pretty good in its own right. Imagine how it could have been if just a fraction of what is being done now had been done then. Proper development and funding, 5 speed gearbox, it could have been an engine to rival the Spanish motors. Development of a trials bike was well within our grasp too. Bultaco succeeded because one of our own went over there and developed it for them. What might have been you can only wonder. Now we appear to have the same sort of attidude surfacing again with people seemingly out to 'stop the rot' in Pre65. The news is this. There are hundreds of modified bikes out there right now and they are modified because it is what people want. There is no going back, you can't put them in the crusher, re-write the rule book and start again. People vote with their feet as the saying goes and it's pretty clear what a lot of people want. They don't want to ride standard British bikes which are big, heavy, ugly and clumsy (in the main) The voting with the feet was done and the footsteps led to the doors of people who could help them make their bikes more pleasant to ride - more competitive undoudbtedly. Imagine this. Is the near 70 year old 10 stone rider whose best days in fitness are behind him going to choose to ride a near 270lbs standard bike which may seriously hurt him in a fall, or a lightweight modernised version he can manage. If there are people out there who disagree and want to ride standard bikes there is nothing stopping you from doing it. Time to stop the whining and get yourselves organised and run events for the type of bikes you want. Scotland needs to get its act together and decide what it wants. An exibition of days of yore or a competition with the best Pre65 riders showcasing their skills in what is considered to be the premier Pre65 event in the UK. If the latter, give up on the ridiculous regs and allow the modifications and be open about it. The silhouette philosophy is a farce and belongs in a bin. Virtually every Pre65 event I've been to has no scrutineering and I have yet to hear any moaning about the type of bikes taking part in any of them and that is the truth. Most of the carping happens on here, the internet. Maybe it does happen but I never hear it and riders seem to readily accept the machines that are there. They know who will do the winning and understand that the people who are in the running for the winning want the best chance of doing so. They need a bike to facilitate that. A trial is a proper competition, not a rider procession. They know that if they were riding Bou's 4RT, they atill wouldn't win, so it's irrelevant to them. So whoever is doing it, get off the backs of people who are providing a service to people who want that service. They aren't responsible for whatever it is you think they are. At this moment I'm that p****d off with all of this and the general bull**** that seems to surround the Pre65 scene that I really feel like jacking it in and with the exception of the Manx Classic, providing I get in, which thankfully hasn't yet succumed to any of this crap, giving up on Pre65 and continuing to ride my twinshocks in mainly modern trials and the odd classic. Maybe my last word on this but I have to reiterate - again - just in case words get twisted or misunderstood. I HAVE NEVER HAD A PROBLEM WITH MODIFIED PRE65 BIKES, I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH ANY OF THE SPECIALIST PARTS SUPPLIERS AND i HAVE NO WISH TO CAUSE ANY ILL-FEELING TOWADRS ANY OF THEM. I AM GENUINELY SORRY IF THIS IS WHAT HAS HAPPENED. IT IS ONLY CERTAIN RULES I DISAGREE WITH, THE KIND THAT DISPLAY THE SAME NARROW-MINDEDNESS THAT CONFINED OUR BIKE MANUFACTURING TO THE SCRAPHEAP ALL THOSE YEARS AGO

I hope this isn't as a result of something I've said as it is the eligibility rules I have the issues with, not the manufactures of the parts - see post above And the first line in your above paragraph hits the nail on the head. If EVERYONE was happy riding an original spec bike, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. Or would we? Assume the modernisation of British bikes had never occured, they were all still as they were Pre65. Then someone bought Miller's genuine, original spec Pre65 Ariel to ride in the Pre-unit class, with all its special (for the time) parts not available to anyone else, would people riding their standard spec bikes be happy at the 'unfair advantage' they gave, or would they want to modify and improve theirs to the same spec? Didn't the BSA riders have special alloy barrels but painted black to make them look standard in appearance to customers who couldn't buy them? I wonder how many friends of BSA riders may have acquired one at the time? There is absolutely nothing new in modifying the bikes. There is a simple solution. If the Scottish want to make their trial for original spec bikes it is within their power to do so. ANYTHING not carrying original Pre65 parts goes in a specials class and does not qualify for an award or the outright winner's award. That includes frames, yokes etc etc. That way the specials can still ride and they may win the event outright on points lost, but riders of standard machines take the awards. ANY club or series/championship can do the same thing. Run standard and modified bike classes amongst the various capacity classes. ANY bike not carrying original Pre65 parts goes in the specials classes. This way both camps are happy, those that like the modified bikes and those that only want standard bikes. They are competing like against like, no 'unfair advantage', winners in both classes. This way, the riders that like to ride modified bikes can continue to do so and no-one need gripe at suppliers of these parts as they have a class for their standard bikes and are not put at any disadvantage by them. Exceptions may want to be made for modern ignitions as no-one wants to break down because of inefficient old electrics which fail. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

I don't and where did I say that - the Pre65 Scottish, Yorkshire Classic and other club's regulations which state that 'original or replica yokes' can be used obviously do. By definition thererfore, they consider them to look of Pre65 replica appearance I was just illustrating the utterly ridiculous situation that prevails with these rules that out of several sets of yokes currently available, all of near identical appearance, one set is not allowed because it 'isn't Pre65'. I feel that you're misunderstanding or taking things that I say out of context and missing the points I'm trying to make clear. In a nutshell:- Pe65 bikes have been 'modified with later components' for the last 20 odd years. I HHAVE NO ISSUE WITH THE MODIFIED PRE65 BIKES and it's none of my business whether someone wants to spend

Ditto the chainguard...

Tam, don't know why you're referring to trial rules when I was referring to regulation rules. Sorry to disagree but there are idiotic rules and most reside on Pre65 machine eligibility regulations. You can have brand new billett machined yokes for

exactly - there is some utter crap being peddled around as to what you need to do to a bike to make it 'competitive'. I wish I had been born with enough gall to peddle and benefit from it...