It seems to me that most people are happy with any twinshock as long as it looks pretty much as it did when it left the factory. Bikes will without doubt be tweaked and modified but if it remains easily indentifiable as a Fantic, Bultaco Majesty, I dont see any problem. Hybrid one off bikes and certainly converted mono shocks do not fit, And for the life of me cannot understand why you would want to ride one knowing the controversy surrounding them as they are clearly being built, sold and ridden to gain an advantage and test the rules or lack of them , on machine eligibility. It will be very interesting how this subject progresses but it can start with the clubs policing it themselves and some hard decisions being made when these bikes turn up at trials.........

It seems to me that most people are happy with any twinshock as long as it looks pretty much as it did when it left the factory. Bikes will without doubt be tweaked and modified but if it remains easily indentifiable as a Fantic, Bultaco Majesty, I dont see any problem. Hybrid one off bikes and certainly converted mono shocks do not fit, And for the life of me cannot understand why you would want to ride one knowing the controversy surrounding them as they are clearly being built, sold and ridden to gain an advantage and test the rules or lack of them , on machine eligibility. It will be very interesting how this subject progresses but it can start with the clubs policing it themselves and some hard decisions being made when these bikes turn up at trials.........

Good point and to the crux of the matter. To some Club Secretarys

Edited September 12, 200916 yr by Old trials fanatic

Mmmm.

Think we should learn by past experiance,something that's coming up you wont hold down.

Maybe give the monos come twinshock there own class,atleast there will be more money coming into the classic trials side of thing's,that has to be a good thing for us surely.

"Incidentally if somebody turned up on one of the extremely rare Cheney monoshock cantelever Ossas they should ride as a monoshock also. A previous post mentioned "Evolution" well that bike is a perfect example of "Evolution" a converted monoshock is NOT."

Given that the Cheney/Horsman/Ossa UK bikes were built in 1974 to 1979 or there abouts they are most certainly twinshock period. I can assure you that the rear cantilever suspension is no where near as sophisticated as a Yam mono so why would you peanalise them? They are more a historical quirk than a real threat to the winners podium.

I agree with mattylad about the monoshock OSSA and I would also allow Mick Andrew's 1973 works cantilever monoshock trials bike in Twinshock class, on the same basis. The Yamaha cantilever rear end was obviously found wanting because the frame was later modified to a twinshock rear end.

Like the Yamaha works bike, the OSSA cantilever suspension was a design dead end. Both would be quite inferior to most of the twinshock bikes commonly seen in competition nowadays - and should be warmly welcomed into twinshock competition.

Edited September 15, 200916 yr by feetupfun

I absolutly agree with feetupfun and mattylad.The cantilever Ossa and Yam are warmly welcome to any Twinshock event.Like the MX and Enduro Boys do,they are allowed to ride the Catileverbikes like the Yamaha's and Kramer's(Twinshock Cantilever)in the Twinshockclass.Remeber NSU Max,the road bike was a cantilever in 1953-1958,but a lot of people convert it into a twinshock.So today no problems in the pre 65 class.What about a Vincent or a Imme?In ouer Country the have maybe some stupid rules in the Classicscene.It is not allowed to ride a mono converted in a twinshock.Full stopp.If you ride a Enfield,you have to ride in the Twinshockclass,because of the fork.Frontleading axel.I know that it was original,but i do not make the rules.So this is a bit stupid.If you ride a bike with a watercooled engine,it is not allowed even in Twinshock or pre 65.There are manufactures who had watercooled engines,like sachs and z