woody

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...

Just had a look at your rules and have one or two genuine observations. Twinshock minimum wheelbase 50" - TY175 and mini-Majesty and possibly Whitehawk are less than this. Forks max 36mm - Why 36mm all were 35mm apart from SWM at 38mm. Is it intended to allow Yama Mono front ends (which I don't have an issue with as Yam monos were competing against twinshocks in 1983/4/5 so it was a possible mod then. 38mm Forks - it's a bit woolly. Can only SWM use them or any twinshock. As there are no dating classes in t/s, it's one class that spans 1970 - 1985, therefore it stands to reason that any bike can have 38mm if they are all competing against each other? Maybe needs rewording to clarify exactly what the rule means. Fuel carried in tank above the motor - There is a genuine Bultaco modified in the 70s by Steve Wilson that had the fuel tank and air filter positions reversed (like the later JCM) John Collins owns it now and still rides it. It was ridden in the 70s like this but by definition would be in the specials. There could be other bikes out there like this as people were creating all sorts back then. If someone copied that Bultaco now, does it make it a trick/cheat/special? Tubeless rims - I've said my bit on them... Later engines - How much of an advantage are they, really? It's mainly Fantic or Beta we're talking about. Again, I'm not keen on it but have no real objection. If I fit a 240 Fantic with a reed valve it is perfectly acceptable. Tamaha TY250 had them in 1973 as a production bike and set a precedent. Ossa UK were using them in 1975. Numerous privateer bikes were converted in that era. So there can be no objection to any twinshock (in the absence of cut-off date classes) being fitted with a reed. So, back to the Fantic. What is the difference between me fitting the reed to the 240 or putting in a 245 reed motor which saves me trying to find someone to convert the 240 for me. I can't see any. I also wouldn't bother I have to add, as the Fantics 200, 240 and 300 have more than enough GO for today's classic sections - see previous post. But if some choose to do it I'm not going to object. If I had a Fantic 240 and put the latest 307 motor in it, I'm not suddenly going to win this year's Normandale championship. My results will be the same. Similarly, if David Pye removed his 38mm forks and later motor and put his 300 back to standard, he isn't going to drop behind me in the results. I can see what you want to do and that you have concerns over the direction you think twinshocks is heading, but I see the reality differently. I don't think it will ever go the Pre65 route. Even the oldest twinshocks are quite reasonable to ride in terms of handling, weight, steering and suspension. Even the worst of them like the KT250 (sorry KT, I loved you but you weren't the best ride) is still competitive in a modern B trial and I actually won a few B standard modern club trials on it, against other twinshocks and modern bikes. So there isn't the need for them to be heavily modified to make them rideable like a god-awful standard Pre65 bike. These 'super' twinshocks don't really exist. Most of the mods are cosmetic and remodelling, performance wise they aren't putting those bikes light years ahead of the standard machine - like in Pre65 Things can always change I guess but I know from competing all over the place that most riders agree on where the boundaries are. There will always be one or two who want to 'push it' but that is human nature - in all walks of like.

The bloke is bound to say this though isn't he as he is selling the product and has to justify it. Interesting as he was one of the biggest critics of modifying twinshocks not too long ago... Honda TLR forks aren't as good as Marzocchis in my opinion as they are like most Jap forks, under sprung and under damped. Fairly easily rectified if needs be by reducing the oil flow by reducing the hole size in the rod and fitting uprated springs or more preload. All depends on your weight and what you want. Nothing that wasn't done back when they were new. Shirty used to modify the Majesty forks for supported riders for the same reason. Normal customer bikes were left stock. As for TLR foks not being suitable for use in 'serious competition', what is 'serious competition'? 38mm forks will give you no advantage whatsoever in your average classic event. The severity of sections is nothing like the sections these bikes were ridden over when they were new. In today's classic club events the suspension oil barely gets warm compared to an early 80s trial. Ride your twinshock in the SSDT (like David Pye) and there probably will be a benefit over long, big, rocky sections and continuous moor crossings. But you need to be a rider of his calibre to notice. I doubt I would. 38mm forks are not needed for classic events, the suspension doesn't get worked hard enough. Probably 90%+ of people riding twinshocks in classic events today couldn't get the maximum from a 1970 Model 49 Bultaco in standard spec. When they can, then they can claim fitting 38mm forks gives them an advantage. Personally I'd rather see twinshocks not fitted with them but I don't object to them for the reasons above. I know 38mm modern forks can sometimes be picked up for less than the cost of rechroming originals (as I'm just having some done now -

Assuming you bought the same size as I did when I replaced them in a 247 and MH349 they are a straight replacement, no spacers needed. edit: can't remember the size as too long ago.

Exactly, I wouldn't disagree with that. The question is 'why are the bikes modified in the first place?'. Because they were not very good. Backed up by the fact that everyone dropped them like hot bricks once the 'Spanish Three' arrived. I'll hazard a guess that Pre65 started up in the 70s because riders who were no longer competitive on contemporary machines still fancied a ride out on the bikes of yesteryear as a bit of nostalgia. I'm guessing, not stating as a fact, but all trials were single route back then, so it's possible that if they couldn't cope with the sections, thie older bikes in older style events were a solution. Fast forward to the 80s and a few more riders who started on British bikes in the 60s and who may no longer have enjoyed modern trials, move across to Pre65. Around 1984 the Pre65 Scottish was born. The problem now is that most of the riders have ridden much more modern and capable bikes and so starts the modernisation of the British bikes which must feel horribly antiquated by comparison. Add to that Sammy Miller is riding his further modified Ariel and away it goes, people need to modify their bikes to sta competitive. The rest is just natural evolution into what it has become today. I've said it before and been slated but I'll say it again. If modified bikes were banned I think you would see a huge reduction in the number of British bikes being used as not everyone wants to ride a standard bike. Some are just awful. I remember Rathmell being asked about riding a Greeves in the Pre65 Scottish and he said no way, they were crap then and they're crap now, why would I want to ride one of those'. I can understand people wanting to modify them. Times change and almost everyone has experience of riding bikes newer than the original British bikes. I imagine not many want the authentic experience of dodgy electrics, worn out or inefficient carburettors, suspension that doesn't suspend, inefficient and noisy exhausts, lethal footrests and probably the biggest issue - the weight. The modifications make the bikes easier to ride, more manageable and much more reliable. The Pre65 tag is just a label, a class name - does it matter what it is? They are still British bikes in essence but no longer to Pre65 specification. Again, does it matter? The one thing that really p****s me off about it is the hypocricy with the regs. The silhouette philosophy - you can use brand new replica parts, frames or billet components, as long as they resemble the original.... How many of the modern parts deemed acceptable resemble parts from before 1965? As for the silhouette, how do any of them resemble the original form? Now I don't have a problem with this as I own a BSA which is being modernised, but I really get wound up at regs that allow brand new parts to be used that look nothing like the original, but prohibit the use of cheap alternatives from broken up old twinshocks such as wheels, forks, hubs, yokes which could be obtained at a fraction of the cost. It's regs such as these, spawned mainly from the Scottish which are forcing people to spend thousands if they want a bike to compete at top level on. Such a bike could be achieved at a fraction of the cost with used parts. But you can't because they 'don't resemble the originals'. Well, unless you have seriously distorted vision, neither do the parts that are alllowed. The modified bikes aren't the problem. The idiotic rules that abound are.

Tam, I'm not deriding what you're trying to do, definitely not. My reply was genuine. You mentioned 4 simple rules, one of which was no Jumbo forks, another was tyres to run with tubes. Jumbo forks was a bit loose in its definition, hence my comment. Tyres to run with tubes is also a bit loose but infers no tubeless. There seems to be a growing trend in outlawing tubeless tyres on tubeless rims which I can't honestly understand. You may consider tubeless with a tube in ok and I have done this myself, but not all tubed rims will support tubeless tyres, therefore that combination is not always possible. I've detailed previously why I've moved to tubeless on my bikes whenever possible, my BSA included. Believe me, if the tubed tyres performed as they should I wouldn't have bothered to incur an unecessary expense. However, tubeless also make it a lot easier to deal with punctures so that we can enjoy doing what we like best - riding - instead of wasting so much time with patches or fitting another tube in the middle of nowhere. There is a simple answer to the Pre65 'dilemma' if organisers want to do it. Taking a C15 as an example, if the bike doesn't look like the picture below and retain its original parts it goes in the specials class. As I said before, it's not hard to judge what is and what isn't... Personally I think the horse has long gone and it is too late to stop the modification of British bikes. Some do it for the enjoyment of it, some because they can, some in the misguided belief it will turn them overnight into a champion of the class. It will continue. However. there is nothing to stop individual clubs holding events for standard machines. Make it VERY clear in the regs that anything considered not standard at the organiser's discretion will go in a specials class. If people want to enter such a trial on their standard machines, they will. Too simple? Seems a logical enough concept.

If you really want to 'pep it up' a bit, the cheapest and most effective way is to fit a single crank weight from a 250 in place of the double weight on the 325, or a 250 ignition flywheel which is almost 2lbs lighter. Or both. It will pick up very quickly / very very quickly...

What are Jumbo forks? The last model SWM had 38mm Betor forks so if you mean 38mm diameter, that is a period twinshock dimension and you would ban a standard SWM with that rule. Better to say no 38mm forks dating from post 1985 if you want to prohibit them. However, having ridden a few bikes with modern 38mm forks fitted they offer bugger all advantage as far as I'm concerned over a well set up pair of standard Marzocchis. As far as defining a proper spec British Pre65 bike, by definition it should have no electronic ignition, Monobloc carb, steel rims, steel hubs, original forks with no modern internals, original yokes, no modern rear dampers, steel (or alloy?) mudguards, original footpegs, steel fuel tank, steel oil tank and weigh over 260lbs. That's a pretty accurate Pre65 spec. Any deviation from the above puts it in a twinshock or modernised class. You may have to concede to modern tyres but Bridgestone or Barum trail type could be used to mimic the performance level of 60s tyres. Not being facetious with this but you asked the question, that's a genuine response. Finally, what is the obsession with banning tubeless tyres on tubeless rims, even on twinshocks. There is a good reason they are used and that is because the tube type trials tyres on sale aren't too clever. The Michelin Radial is as effective as a Michelin Pilot in mud and you may as well leave your bike in the garage as fit one of those. The IRC tube tyre is of dubious construction and inconsistent in its performance at best, some are ok and some aren't. They're prone to punctures, particularly compression if used hard, soft sidewalls that roll all over the place on rocks and cambers and the support wires can break through on the inside. The tubeless tyre is much stronger in construction, they are no better in terms of compound or grip, but they don't suffer the aforementioned problems. Unfortunately, they can't always be trusted to stay seated on a tubed rim fitted with a tube and may drop off. If they do - trial over. For someone like me, who travels long distances to take part in trials all over the place, there is no way I'm going to spend hundreds of pounds on travel, accommodation, fuel, entry fees, bike prep. etc, to have my day ruined and all that time, effort and money wasted, due to problems with a tyre that a manufacturer can't be bothered to put right and seems to refuse to accept has a problem. They've been like this for 15 years and they've done nothing to correct it when all they have to do is make it the same construction as the tubeless. So, given the doubt that a tubeless tyre will stay seated on a tubed rim if worked really hard in more demanding events and having suffered way too many punctures and roll around sidewalls, over the last 2 or 3 years I've fitted tubeless rims to my bikes as and when funds allowed. This is so that I can go and enjoy riding with peace of mind that I'm not going to have my day wrecked by a dodgy tyre. The ACU have no rules that probhibit them in their series and if individual clubs start banning them I'll just turn my back on classic events and ride my twinshocks in modern events. It's the bikes I enjoy riding, as long as there are events to ride them in I'm happy - if they are all modern it's not a problem, I ride mainly modern events anyway. I just don't see the problem. Most of the moaning about modified bikes is the appearance, understandably so. Well, a tubeless tyre is black and round and indistinguishable from a tubed type. You have to look hard to even notice a tubeless rim. Does it really matter if you can't 'push the valve in' or there aren't any security bolts visible. A tubeless tyre is the only modern component that exactly resembles it's 60s counterpart, yet it's not accepted when modern billet machined parts that look nothing like readily are... It's just a tyre.