Ok Time To Get Shot At. John What Is Or Should Be The Acu Position On Bike Elegibility Specifically Pre65 And Twinshock

[old trials fanatic]

Well i've been going on about this for ages and some other posts in other categories have touched on it so here goes.

The ACU produce a handbook. In that handbook are various rules and regulations pertaining to all the forms of Motor Cycle sport within the ACU jurisdiction.

So how come there is such a wide varience in elegibility of the Pre65 bikes and now the twinshock class at Club, Center, National and err Scottish (i'm gonna regret this arent i?)

Why is it beyond the power of the ACU not to produce a binding spec for these classes that applies to all events run under the auspices of the ACU?

It's a nightmare if you are building a bike to know what you should and should not fit plus it would remove all the backbiting and bad feeling re what is and what is not a "special".

What really worries me is when i stop doing this will the pain go away?

Edited October 25, 2006 by Old trials fanatic

[spud]

How about a paragraph in the ACU handbook saying something along the lines of: All twin shock, pre 65, 72 etc ..should conform to the manufacturers orginal specification. Where replacement parts are not available from the manufacturer, details of any none standard part/s should be made available for assessment to there eligibility and judged if they are a 'replacement part' or an 'enhancmnent '. Details of all parts 'none' manufacturer will be supplied in writing and made available to the ACU and event organisers prior to competition. Failure to disclose this information will result.......blar, blar, blar

[danbeaven]

I totally agree. There are 'period mods' which I think are good for the sport and encourage riders to enter into the spirit of the events, but this sudden wave of disc-braked, ex-monoshocked type bikes is not good. It takes the whole thing too far, and under current guidelines, what is there to stop a rider going out and buying a new beta/gas-gas/sherco etc, making up a dummy subframe, and welding two shocks on the back?

Also, there is no need. A well set-up/maintained standard bike of your choice is more than capable of winning at ALL levels. I'd argue that the sections used in present day nationals are no harder than those the likes of Rathmell, Farley, Lampkin, Saunders, Lejeune etc would have ridden when the bikes were new, and they never had the need for disc's or sherco forks etc....

[stu]

if it ws only that simple................................!

[ask greeves]

I think the ACU shot themselves in the foot, by originally 20 odd years ago calling the class pre 65. What about the man with the 1966 Francis Barnet or the guy with the 1967 James, they're out in the cold, so to speak. Any name with the words 'Pre' draws an unbendable line in the sand. The class needs a non descript name, then every year those bikes elidgible can be updated. Why didn't they call it say, the Imperial Class as in feet and inches, they could have given the Scrutineers an AF or UNC adjustable spanner, if it fits snuggly on the rear wheel spindle nuts then its elidgible for the Imperial Class. No seriously, its only 59 years to go then they'll have to change the name, because in 59 years it'll be 2065, what happens then. Any name with either pre or a date is bad news, it eventually becomes unworkable. I'm a great believer in KISS (keep it simple stupid) the 66 Francis Barnet is to young for one class and the 67 James shouldn't really be in the same class as say an 84 Fantic twinshock, trials bike technology progressed alot in that 17 years. Surely its about making the riding enjoyable with the minimum amount of unnecessary aggrevation. The simpler the rules the easier they are to enforce, I dont think that its about winning, it's about competing, but competing on a simple set of rules, a level playing field, because we all like to feel , that we've got a chance, no matter how small that chance may be.

Edited October 26, 2006 by ask greeves

[woody]

Firstly, forget the Pre65 Scottish as it is not governed by the ACU.

Pre65 eligibilty - too late, the horse has bolted, died and gone to heaven. It is too far down the line now to draw up any rules as there are too many modified bikes out there. We can't go back now and undo all that has been done. Where would a line be drawn anyway? If a modern replacement frame is used that is significantly lighter than the original should that be allowed? Electronic ignition, alloy rims, alloy hubs? What can or can't you use, the list is endless and an absolute minefield. Trying to get back to a starting point on this would be as easy as unpicking the Bayeaux Tapestry to its starting point, stitch by stitch.....

If a new set of rules was introduced who would enforce them and who has the knowledge or will to do so?

Clubs are free to set and enforce their own rules as far as I am aware. The ACU can set the rules for a National championship. In the Miller championship there is a specials class for non-standard or modified bikes but such bikes still compete in the ordinary British bike class. Organisers don't insist on the riders changing class and I would guess they are just happy to see a healthy entry and don't want to deter people from riding the event next year by telling them that they have to go in this or that class or remove this or that from their bike. Bottom line is that the best riders will still win whatever they are on so if they want to battle with each other over who has the deepest pockets or best engineering skills let them. It will make no difference to the lower order who have no chance of winning and are just out for a ride.

Twinshocks - Rules already exist and have done since the advent of the original Sebac serieis. Must be twinshock of original manufacture and more recently added, no disc brakes. Straightforward enough and everyone knows what it means. No monoshock bikes with twin shocks fitted. As far as changing components, my own thoughts are;

Suspension - can't see a problem with fitting a modern set of Sherco/Gas Gas or whatever front forks. It's been going on for a while and personally I don't think it offers any real advantage over a decently set up pair of Marzzochis.

Frame - nothing wrong in altering head angles, suspension pick up points as it was all done at the time. Swingarms were lengthened and shortened so no problem with that now.

Wheels - as long as they are drums, no problem. Allow discs and sections will tighten up just like they did when they came in - one of the reasons for this series in the first place, to get away from up your own a*** sections and back to no stop

Engine - Ideally, engine should be from the twinshock era but difficult to govern as there are already Fantics with 301/303/305 engines fitted which look the same as a 240/300 at a glance. What do you do, have a reference chart with engine numbers for all makes/models?

Exhausts - they were modified at the time so nothing wrong in them being modified now.

As long as people play the game and don't take the p*ss with modifications there shouldn't be a problem. The only one I can see is that the rule of twinshock at original manufacture has a loophole which allows someone to build their own special. If a decent rider with a lot of money at their disposal pays someone to build such a bike out of unobtanium which is far superior to a 'conventional' twinshock and starts cleaning up, what happens next? Difficult call. It's nice to see specials but maybe they should have a class of their own. A pre85 class would solve it but that would rule out RTX (although why would you...) Cotswold Majesty should be allowed as it is a 1980s frame with a 1980s copy engine.

As far as a pre72, pre77, post 78 class split is concerned there is then the added problem of checking that components from the wrong era haven't been fitted. First thing I'd like to see which may encourage riders on older twinshocks back into the ACU Classic series is for that series to be run over two routes again. Riders on older machines then have an easier route to ride on but can ride the harder route if they wish. A slimline Bult for example will still cope with the ACU Classic as it is now, it just has to be ridden a bit harder than say a Fantic over the sections, but the sections aren't beyond it. A TY175 has won one round this year...

[lee harris]

Heres my tuppence worth....

A previous post may have initiated the discussion (301 twin shock fantic...I personally would have left it as a mono if I woz competeing against another mono...another discussion)

The Most important part for me (thanks Pete) is the "spirit of things". Gasgas forks and hydraulic clutches were not available in 84. Thierry Michauds 300 however did appear once in a while with a Mikuni carb AND an reed valve so I rekon thats as far as it goes.

I have a 240 with a 243 engine in it...still piston ported but no more 240 clutch baskets and ignitions forced me to make that mod. It has no discs nor hydraulik clutchs. And the forks have std internals and are not gas gas. For me, my next, a 240 with a 309 engine is as far as I personally want to go and still remain in the spirit of things. Here in germany nobody will care about the reed valve as I dont ride the top cl

[feetupfun]

All this fuss about people making specials for Twinshock is a bit overblown. Some people like taking the hotrod route with their hobby and get great enjoyment making their bikes different, personalised and sometimes better than they were originally.

Riders from the era can usually spot the differences made to a hotrod or home-made Twinshock and it does lend a hightened level of interest to the class which would not be there if we all rode standard bikes of the era.

I've noticed that the sort of person who gets their kicks this way is not usually seen on the winners podium - maybe because they spend so much time modifying their bikes that they never get to practice riding.

Have a think about who usually wins at a high level in your area and check out their bikes. Where I ride the winners are usually on very standard looking bikes of the type that were also (co-incidentally?) the best bikes to ride in their era. Just thinking about some of the top level twinshock riders where I ride brings up:

Majesty 250, SWM 320, Fantic 240, Montesa 242, Montesa 348 and 349, TY175, TY250, Bultaco M198/199A and B. All of these are very standard bikes. There are also a contingent of hotrodded twinshocks which are greatly enjoyed by their riders but rarely win top level events.

Maybe if an outrageously modified bike started winning there would be a protest but it just doesn't seem to happen here.

[charlie prescott]

Hi Guys.

Seems to me most of us enjoy tinkering with our bikes as much as riding them. We know that before 1965 every one was doing this then, the first thing I did with my "Greeves Scottish" was to shorten the silencer, and fit glassfibre gaurds, plastic Sackville twist grip, alloy levers ETC,

The only way I see for dateing a machine is by the engine number, but most "Works" bikes did'nt have these.

There will never be a level playing field for one bike or another,Its just a matter of if your face fit's I am afraid. One would think with depleating entrys in a lot of trials that every one would be welcome and sections would be set out for different age groups and not bikes.

Rgards Charlie.

[john collins]

Was starting to wonder if you had all given in - or fallen asleep as this Forum seemed to have stalled.

Now I see this post I kind of wish it had - for this is surely a controversial one!

I am up to my eyes in things today - it is that time when dates/rules/conditions etc all have to be finalised - but certainly tonight or tomorrow I will give my response - which will quite likely upset quiote a few !

[trickymicky]

The rules on eligibility in the Sammy Miller series were going to be strictly enforced at the Greensmith , last week we were told. I didnt go but have been assured no checking of bikes took place. So the threat of checking them seems to be worse than saying nothing. Those that have spent money getting their bikes may as well have not bothered.

And, it could now be interpreted by some when they see questionable bikes in the results of this series that the ACU have actually checked them (as they said they would) and passed them for their respective classes.

Did the ACU send anyone to that event? - and if so, what was his/her input on the day?

[paioli]

CHEAT to gain unfair advantage by deception or breaking rules.

up to the end of last year there were no rules in the twin shock class so putting two shocks on a 25 year

old ty mono was NOT breaking any rules, the oridignal manufacter rule was only introduced this year!

so proving any new rules can easly be introduced for next year!

r2tightarse trials get your facts right before you start calling people names and commenting on things that

you do not quite have the full facts about , now whose THICK

IF you think your brave enough,say it to the faces of those concerned and stop hiding behind your keypad

some how i don't think you have the BALLS !!!

[lee harris]

i think we upset somebody.....

[tilertrialler]

Surely you wonder why anyone would take the mono off a yam and ride it as a twinshock, its cheating.

The rules for twin shocks must be straight foward have a class for pre 78, that rules out your fantics and tlrs, mainly for ossa, mont. TL, bultaco.

have a post 78 class fantics, tlrs .

and have a specials class for the chopped yams and cotswolds.

peaple are always going to change head angles , lower footrests its all part of the enjoyment of the sport.

when you add discs or remove mono to add shocks its just not in the spirt, I have seen a RTL honda with shocks now thats taking the p***.

[woody]

The rules on eligibility in the Sammy Miller series were going to be strictly enforced at the Greensmith , last week we were told. I didnt go but have been assured no checking of bikes took place. So the threat of checking them seems to be worse than saying nothing. Those that have spent money getting their bikes may as well have not bothered.

And, it could now be interpreted by some when they see questionable bikes in the results of this series that the ACU have actually checked them (as they said they would) and passed them for their respective classes.

Did the ACU send anyone to that event? - and if so, what was his/her input on the day?

I don't think it was an actual statement from the ACU T&E committee that the bikes would be checked at the Greensmith. It came about as a result of a protest made at the previous round and as a consequence someone from the Greensmith organisers siad that bikes would be checked at the Greensmith. Whether this was a specific statement or just a question of should they I don't know but word got around that they would be checked. As you say, they weren't, but that aside, how can you suddenly throw bikes out of a class at the penultimate round when they have been competing in that class all year.

From the bikes that were there I would say the greater percentage would have been in the specials class if the rule had been enforced. Apart from the rigids, almost everything else had non standard something fitted.

I still don't know what the answer is. At least there are 2 routes in the Miller series so the easier route is fine for the bigger bikes or standard smaller bikes so there is no reason owners of those bikes can't enjoy a good days trialling. If a better rider has a standard bike then they can always ride the harder route for a challenge. Perhaps the rules could state that modified bikes ride the hard route, that way they're not competing against unmodified bikes and forget about the specials class...??

The twinshock rule that states must be twinshock of original manufacture has been in since the series began back in the 80s. It was missed out of last year's handbook by mistake but is back in now.