woody

I have no issue with the bike. I've nothing against the rider either so I'm not going to pick issue with certain components that I know are outside the rules and have actually been on the bike for more than a few years. It's a 230cc as he reckons that is the optimum for that motor. But is it a silhouette of a 60s bike? No. So again I ask, what's the point of the rules. I've ridden in the same events as him for many many years now, actually finished ahead of him a few times, but no, I will never be as good or consistent as he is or have his ability. I'll be 65 in 13 years time and if we still have trials then I'll be both amazed and pleased. If I'm still riding I'll be even more pleased. The results of that bike are certainly down to the rider. If you put an average or below average rider on it would their results improve? Assuming their bike is not at the same spec/level, most probably. Would they win the Scottish or Manx Classic on it. Of course not. But if the owner rode a standard Cub, how do you think he would fare against the other riders on their modified bikes. His results wouldn't be as good would they? He modified the bike for a reason and that began over 20 years ago. As I've said numerous times before, I have no issue whatsoever with these modified bikes. If I sold a few twinshocks I could have a state of the art Cub or James, eligible for anything and stand me a chance of a damn good result in the Manx or Scotland. But I don't want one. I like my C15 but it has it's limitations in the bigger events, it's capable enough and has got me top 3 in the Manx day 1 more than once and a finish in the top 10, but the other bikes have an advantage. All I've tried to do is give myself a sporting chance against those bikes by using used components on a budget. But they are frowned upon and called 'special' in some places. That is what I think is the nonsense. And STILL I can't get a reasoned or sensible response to my other posts. Has no-one got an opinion on the whether these silhouette rules serve any purpose any longer, given the non-silhouette appearance of the bikes and the examples of components I mentioned.

Just for the record, there is no intention of malice in my posts, I have nothing personal against the clubs or members mentioned in this thread. My point seems to be continually missed, which is, that I just cannot see the logic in the rules. The modified bikes no longer resemble British bikes, so the 'banned' components that people seem so affronted by would no longer detract from the appearance of a machine. When did you see a Cub like this back in the early 60s. Yet it doesn't have to go in a specials class (except Yorks Classic for the Gator issue)

Have a word with Ian or Richard at Ellastone Offroad 0843 277 2198. They've broken a few RTL Hondas and are pretty knowlegeable on what is and isn't available. The part could cross reference to another model, TLM etc. They may be able to get you one from Japan if there is nothing here. I believe Honda UK did some Rothmans Replica RTL250 models. Not works replicas, just normal RTL Hondas with the colour scheme. A man in the know told me this.

Of course it's broken, this topic wouldn't raise itself at this time of year every year if it wasn't. Forget Yorkshire Classic for a moment. They are a club with their own rules who organise their own club events. Riders don't travel from all corners of the UK to compete in their events. Riders do travel to compete in the Miller rounds, Northern British Bike series and the Pre65 Scottish. The Miller rounds cater for specials, albeit under different class titles over the years, the Northern series does I think (memory not too good as can't find any regs anywhere) but the Scottish obviously doesn't. What's broken is the philosophy that the whole 'silhouette' or 'must be of British period appearance' eligibility criteria is built upon. The parts that are accepted don't conform to this wording. I may have mentioned this before... All I've tried to do is get other opinions as to why people think these components comply, because I can't see that they do, any more than a set of Cota yokes, Grimeca wheel or in-line axle Ossa or Yamaha forks. Still, it is not possible to get a reply on this. Here is another example of the rule covering yokes from another club. Only British or British replica yokes can be used. Now here is a picture of some BSA yokes Here is a picture of a yoke that is eligible A perfect silhouette.... or of British period appearance... well obviously. Can someone explain the logic. And here are some Cota yokes that aren't acceptable And just to reiterate once more, I have nothing against these modern parts, the engineering is beautiful. But the original ethos or ideal that these rules were created upon have been lost. It can't go back, other used parts that resemble the new billet parts should be allowed, there should be no need for a specials class. If not, why not, what's the logic? Comments?

And whilst we're on the silhouette theme of new replica parts, here is a picture of Sammy Miller Products' billet hubs, eligible for Pre65, presumably Rickman copies. Now tell me, what is the difference in appearance between that front hub and a polished Grimeca front hub. My opinion is very little. What's the difference in price - about

They aren't cheats and the bikes aren't unsporting, they are what Pre65 has developed into. As I've said numerous times I've no issue with them. The Pre65 Scottish keeps getting mentioned as it is the event that causes the most controversy. I've printed their rule for forks twice in this post and still no-one will give an opinion or explanation on how these modified forks and brand new billet yokes comply with that wording. I'm just curious that's all, interested in people's opnion as why they are acceptable as they are by no means a silhouette of the originals. Because for the life of me I can make no sense of it at all.

I don't have an issue with the Ariel at all. As it's impossible to get a sensible discussion on the folly of Pre65 eligibility criteria and their interpretation, or a direct answer to a specific question, I'm merely trying to demostrate it in a roundabout way. The rules are clear for the Scottish, I don't see how a set up like that (on any bike, not just that one) can be deemed within those rules. As for one club invoking rules at the round of the Northern PJ1 championship they host, how can they dictate which class a bike should go into when bikes will already have competed in a specific class in previous rounds? I have ridden a few PJ1 rounds, loads of Miller rounds and the Manx classic. There was no scrutineering at any of them. I've never heard anyone moan about someone else's bike. In my class on the BSA, I am up against some highly modified cubs which will run rings around my bike and give a rider a distinct advantage over my bike. I'm not stamping my feet and moaning they should be in the specials class. But if scrutineering was applied, it would be my cheapo shed built bike that was put into the specials, not a

ok, fair enough, just wondered why specials. But I'm at a loss to understand how the addition of gators make the forks acceptable. The Ariel is obviously accepted into Scotland, as are many other bikes with likewise modded forks and yokes. Whether it is eligible is another matter and one I couldn't care less about. I'll quote the regs again and you can make your own mind up. "Fork sliders and yokes to be Pre65 design only. No Bultaco Ossa Yamaha etc or BSA/Triumph 4 stud. Fork maximum length 32 inches" So, based on that regulation and what is seen in the picture, should that bike and many others with likewise modded forks and yokes compete in Scotland. Simple enough question.

Therefore, you wouldn't allow the Ariel in the Pre65 Scottish?

I don't know your location, but you mentioned aerosol paint. Don't use Halfords if your in the UK, the petrol which inevitably escapes from the filler cap during riding, or any you spill when filling up will ruin the paint. Petrol amd Halfords paint don't mix. It may be ok if you lacquer over it but I've never tried that. After my Bultaco tank was ruined I never used Halfords stuff again (for anything likely to come into contact with petrol) Shame really as the application from the can is the best I ever came across for aerosol paint. Can't help you with a paint code, but Ford Electric Monza blue is good for the later 199a model but a bit dark for the homerlite tank's original blue.

Neil Gaunt's probably at the burger van thinking about what burger to have. It's John Maxfield in the picture

And it is examples like this that highlight the sheer stupidity and inconsistency of eligibilty rules and their application. The forks have been extended to accomodate modern internals, in the same manner as many other bikes. They look nothing like Pre65 forks. The Pre65 Scottish, or SACU rules, have been mentioned as a potential template for unified rules as they are the most sensible. Well this is their criteria for front forks:- "Fork sliders and yokes to be Pre65 design only. No Bultaco Ossa Yamaha etc or BSA/Triumph 4 stud. Fork maximum length 32 inches" Now, someone explain to me how fork sliders like these are Pre65 design and when were there any yokes prior to 1965 that looked like that. Yet forks like this are allowed. But my standard framed C15 which had Montesa yokes (almost identical to those) and MK1 Ossa fork sliders (same as those but without the welding) were not allowed and I was pulled up for them. Even though bikes like that were 10 feet away during the scrutineering and were being allowed. It's a farce, I have nothing against bikes like this and the mods don't bother me personally. I don't care what the class is called but I think all is needed is a pragmatic approach to allow people to build a modified bike on a budget. Whereas the Miller series now has a new class to allow this, which is at least a start, I still find it ludicrous that full blown brand new Cubs and James with components like this can still go in the Pre70 class, whereas a standard framed BSA with a pair of Ossa foks is considered modified.... You'll never get unification. Ultimately I don't care on a personal level as I'll ride my bike wherever I can and if it's not acceptable somewhere I just don't go.

I've never believed the theory that petrol vapours leaking through a petrol tank cause the discolouration. UV exposure is far more ikely. Look at any tank that has discoloured and then look at parts that aren't exposed - the underside, underneath badges and like your TY tank, underneath the decals. They still retain the original colour so there is no affect from fuel vapour there. Look at any plastic that is exposed year after year to UV such as kids garden toys. Colours like blue or red fade or go white in the extreme, whites and yellows darken. No petrol vapour at play here. It's UV causing a photochemical affect on polymers in the plastic. My SWM tank is the same, where it's exposed the yellow has darkened, underneath and under the badges it's the original yellow, does petrol vapour not leak through the underneath? Red Fantic tanks fade to pale red and even white in places. Same for painting plastic tanks. I'm convinced that the bubbling and paint lifting is due to poor preparation and incorrect paints and application. If you use spray cans it will bubble. A friend has a Fantic tank that was painted over 10 years ago and has no bubbles or lifting. I have a Sherpa tank that was painted about 4 years ago and has been used constantly. There have only recently been a couple of bubbles formed and I can't see that that has anything to do with vapour leakage. That can happen on metal tanks. Finally, I'm not a physicist or chemist so I have no technical knowledge to back this up, just my thoughts. I have no explanation why stickers lift but maybe it could be to do with the UV affect on the sticker itself or the glue used being dried up. Some stickers just don't stick well to any plastic. Motocross tank decals, such as those produced by MXM, have been developed for years and the material they are made from and the glue used is a lot better than your average decal.

I can't see what's changed other than the wording. The solution has always been there. It's always been, right from the first Sebac rounds, that the bikes were twinshock of original manufacture. The rules have always been clear, everyone knows what a twinshock is. It's riders entering on converted monos who miss the point, no-one else. As for Scottish Pre65 regs being used as a standard for the rest of the UK, you must be joking. All that would do is spread the controversy caused by one trial to every other trial in the UK. The application of those regs is totally inconsistent. They're supposed to invoke a 'silhouette' approach, components must resemble period components. Joke. How many bikes ridden in the Scottish resemble Pre65 bikes. Ariels with 7" of front suspension travel look nothing like Ariels, Cubs with modern alloy teardrop tanks and billet yokes and hubs look nothing like 60s Cubs. None of which bothers me but what is it supposed to achieve. Class 7 in the Miller championship is a far more pragmatic solution. It allows Joe Bloggs on a tight budget to have a British bike that is half reasonable to ride, by getting rid of the god-awful non-functional suspension and replacing it for little or no cost with a cheap set of Spanish or Jap forks that they may have lying in the garage, instead of having to fork out a few hundred quid on a set of fiddle forks. They can also replace the big heavy British wheels with a set of cheap Jap or European wheels instead of having to fork out on billet machined replica hubs and new rims. Now they have a bike that is at least pleasant to ride and has half a chance of getting over a housebrick without jarring the rider's back or pitching him off due to the 2" of useable fork travel with no rebound damping that the original equipment so tantalisingly offers. Why would anyone want to change it... I'm not against the modernised 'British Twinshocks', not at all, but at least now we have a class that allows people who can't afford the new billet parts to compete on a low budget home creation with bits from the shed.

It seems they've just changed the wording to match the wording used for the twinshock class of the Traditional series. It just means no converted monos, not that you can't move shock position. If that were the case there would be quite a number of twinshocks that were modified from new that couldn't be used.... Imagine Vesty not being able to ride his Commerfords bike. I think the renaming of Class 7 in the Miller series to British Twinshocks is a good idea, as last year's title of Replica and Pre-unit was very confusing.

Whereas I haven't compared them side by side, the 158 is a 250 so it's unlikely the 325 cylinder liner would fit into the crankcase mouth. Also I don't think, but not 100% certain, that the 159 onwards cylinder will fit in earlier 325 engines as they were basically an overbored 250 and have thinner liners than the later bikes. Whereas all of the crankcase halves from different 5 speed models will probably bolt together, they aren't all interchangeable. The gearbox bearings, gearbox shafts and clutch hubs changed dimensions somewhere around 1973 (ish) So you have to match the gearbox to the casings and you also need the correct clutch hub to go with the output shaft from the gearbox. You're better off looking for another set of 159 cases or another complete bottom end from the model 159 onwards. Any ignition cover will fit from 1969 models onwards.

Yes, Karl was a dealer so probably had a new bike each year. Rode mainly the 325 I think after they came out in '73. I think he rode every year in the 70s and had some good results as well.

I did the same with mine to secure the kickstart arm to the knuckle. Made a cup to fit over the the knuckle shaft in place of the circlip, drilled and tapped the shaft, fit the arm, fit the cup and secure with an M8 bolt. The circlip can't take the load and I had quite a few fail, even using the decompressor when starting, which can easily result in a lost kickstart arm, probably at the bottom of a ravine. This shouldn't happen now as it is a much more secure means of securing the arm.

Thanks Anthony, good idea, neat too. I've found the case saver now and I can see that it extends back far enough to stop the kickstart as well as protect the casing against knocks, although it's different from the one pictured in a previous post. Wish I'd realised it doubled as a kickstart stop before I holed the casing...

Short answer - no. I had them on my bike thinking they would be fine as they are the same style and appearance as the billet yokes but I was pulled up for them.

Hi Rob, yes I've seen your 320 rebuild - nice job. Thanks for the info, the picture clears up the sidestand bracket issue, that's as I thought it should be. The bracket on mine has been welded back on but it is at the wrong angle so needs doing again. Now I know what it looks like. Mine has the lightner, the pull is ok, it's just the action of the clutch itself, it's ok in most situations but when you want it in a higher gear it isn't really good enough and is going to cause problems in harder events. I've another couple of things to try before real desperation sets in. I know Martin and will see him at Telford in a few weeks.