February 9, 200818 yr On the subject of oil in frame, was an Ariel HT5 production bike oil in frame? No. Every "Millerized" Ariel out there is based on a bike that was never produced by the factory, but a works bike if you like. Remember that most of the famous Miller mods happened after the HT was out of production, when Sam had some leeway to modify the bike (from BSA!). A production HT is 300 + lbs of steel oil tank, forks, big hubs, chrome steel rims.....food for thought! Doug Edited February 9, 200818 yr by huntmaster
February 9, 200818 yr Yes, but all those mods were achieveable without a great deal of money being spent and they were all done before 1965!Big John Dunno bout "without a great deal of money" have you priced up having the cub crank modified as in ultra short stroke? No all i meant was that contrary to some peoples ideas of how things were when the world was in black and white Trials bikes have always been modified by their owners. Some of the contributors seem to believe people actually rode the bikes as they were produced by the factories and sold over the counter when in reality a lot of the "Trials" models were barely reworked road bikes that NEEDED extensive mods just to be able to compete. So this idea of "standard" bike only competing in Scotland is a daft as there werent any "Std" bike being ridden competitively Pre65. By definition of std i mean as in Huntmasters posting of the Ariel for example. Very nice AJay though why they never dropped the seat i'll never know Edited February 9, 200818 yr by Old trials fanatic
February 9, 200818 yr Here's a photo of my short stroke '64 AJS 16C before it was parted down. The frame has been done and a good friend is working on the motor, so I may have it back together sometime this year. Don't worry the yellow number plate is coming off, I'll use that on a 340 Bulto and the rims have been replaced already. Not sure wheteher to use a brand new (NOS) Jackson tank and do it in ivory white with the gold lining like the last model factory bikes as a tribute or leave it original black and gold, what do you think? Big John
February 9, 200818 yr Here's a photo of my short stroke '64 AJS 16C before it was parted down. The frame has been done and a good friend is working on the motor, so I may have it back together sometime this year.Don't worry the yellow number plate is coming off, I'll use that on a 340 Bulto and the rims have been replaced already. Not sure wheteher to use a brand new (NOS) Jackson tank and do it in ivory white with the gold lining like the last model factory bikes as a tribute or leave it original black and gold, what do you think? Big John Stay with the black and gold BJ Looks a beaut. Very Classy
February 9, 200818 yr Hi Guy's Hi Tricky Mick. I hope you are going to rebuild the BSA Mono then, Slinny told me that the shock was Girling and they were a pain in not wanting to get involved with the project. or the "MONO" shock would have become reality in 1963. The bike actualy won a class at the Red Marley hill climb that year. Ridden by Brian Martin I think. Slinny will put me right if I am wrong. Booth him and me Mick would be well intrested in the project as you know. Regards Charlie. PS I am still working out my bit about the Pre 65 classes will get back later.
February 9, 200818 yr No. Every "Millerized" Ariel out there is based on a bike that was never produced by the factory, but a works bike if you like. Remember that most of the famous Miller mods happened after the HT was out of production, when Sam had some leeway to modify the bike (from BSA!). A production HT is 300 + lbs of steel oil tank, forks, big hubs, chrome steel rims.....food for thought! Doug I didn't think they were produced with oil in frame. Funny then, how today's oil in frame replica Ariels are allowed to compete but BSA C15/B40 aren't. I know all about how big and heavy a 'proper' HT5 is. A mate has one in its original trim, completely standard like your photo. He entered one of the Miller rounds last year - it was hard enough just to get it to the sections, never mind ride them. It really is horrible to ride...
February 9, 200818 yr Hi Guy's Hi Tricky Mick. I hope you are going to rebuild the BSA Mono then, Slinny told me that the shock was Girling and they were a pain in not wanting to get involved with the project. or the "MONO" shock would have become reality in 1963. The bike actualy won a class at the Red Marley hill climb that year. Ridden by Brian Martin I think. Slinny will put me right if I am wrong. Booth him and me Mick would be well intrested in the project as you know. Regards Charlie. PS I am still working out my bit about the Pre 65 classes will get back later. Hi Charlie, No,sadly i dont seem to have the bike in question. Its interesting though how long a good idea can take to catch on. Even after sprung rear ends were offered, some riders still thought rigids were better and bought them in preference to springers for a while..
February 9, 200818 yr I know all about how big and heavy a 'proper' HT5 is. A mate has one in its original trim, completely standard like your photo. He entered one of the Miller rounds last year - it was hard enough just to get it to the sections, never mind ride them. It really is horrible to ride... Yep. A beautiful bike to look at but if I had a production HT I'm not even sure I could ride it in my "local" vintage series, which runs the few pre-65 bikes together with newer twinshock bikes...on the easier of the lines. There would have to be an another easier one still or I would probably be leaving a trail of oil to the next section... and might just as well be running a rigid! Doug
March 1, 200818 yr As this thread never dies I've written an article on my web with a few personal views on "the problems" and some suggestions as to the way forward. Then a look at the USA Vintage scene and what you can do over here. See "The Pre 65 Debate" Too long to publish on this site. Tony
March 1, 200818 yr Good article Tony. As I posted earlier, the rules here in North America are definitely a lot less strict..however we are also dealing with a fraction of the numbers of pre-65 entries one sees in the UK I expect, even at the largest AHRMA meetings. It still seems that there could be some middle ground here, particulary in the face of an aging demographic dealing with what were very big heavy bikes in their day! Besides that, I would like to get my HT over to Scotland one year and I suspect it's Ceriani fork will be a deal breaker under the current rules! Doug
March 2, 200818 yr Good article Tony.As I posted earlier, the rules here in North America are definitely a lot less strict..however we are also dealing with a fraction of the numbers of pre-65 entries one sees in the UK I expect, even at the largest AHRMA meetings. It still seems that there could be some middle ground here, particulary in the face of an aging demographic dealing with what were very big heavy bikes in their day! Besides that, I would like to get my HT over to Scotland one year and I suspect it's Ceriani fork will be a deal breaker under the current rules! Doug Not sure that the 4 bolt BSA/Triumph forks are P65?..................if not good to see you can build pretty much what you want regards P65 in the US.
March 2, 200818 yr Majestyman340, The forks on the Cub are from a 1970 BSA B50 and give the same wheelbase. 1974 is our cut off year so I can use them along with the 74 Yam front wheel and as carburation isn't subject to any rulings a Martyn Adams Del Orto. Strangely we can't use the Otter frames in our Premier pre 65 classes but they are OK in the Modern Classic Series. There we go RULES IS RULES! Tony
November 10, 201411 yr Hi Guy's. Was that really 2008? Thought some of you might want another read Now. Regards Charlie.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.