Unintended consequences?

[old trials fanatic]

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.

Very true Woody. Pre65 is a total anacronism. British twinshocks is at least a relevant description.

[woody]

I consider that at last, a sensible solution has been found regarding the 'twin shock' class. Let's hope that everybody, clubs/individuals take on board this sensible resolution. Also with regard to Pre 65, i'd like to see the regulations employed at the Pre 65 Scottish, as the standard set of rules throughout the UK, with regard to Pre 65.

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.

Edited January 24, 2011 by Woody

[charlie prescott]

Hi Guy's

Am I hearing and seeing correctly? Did the word "British Twinshocks" get mentioned at last and not the "Before a certain date in the sixties" keep it up guy's this is the wording we now need for these bikes.

Regards Charlie.

[02-apr]

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 they mean no converted monoshocks why don't they just say that clearly instead of using a form of words which has additional implications?

I would suggest that Vesty's bike, as a one-off works special, was manufactured with the rear units as we see them so no problem. As there is only one of them then it can't spread. If someone converted a standard set up to match it would not be as manufactured.

Edited January 26, 2011 by 2/4

[old trials fanatic]

If they mean no converted twinshocks why don't they just say that clearly instead of using a form of words which has additional implications?

I would suggest that Vesty's bike, as a one-off works special, was manufactured with the rear units as we see them so no problem. As there is only one of them then it can't spread. If someone converted a standard set up to match it would not be as manufactured.

I assume you mean no converted monoshocks? Trouble is as soon as you say that the you leave it wide open to "convert" a twinshock to take all worth having from a monoshock. Some Fantics are pretty close to and some have already crossed that line.

Anyway whats so wrong with moving the shock mounts? Why is a Majesty ok but a TY250 with similarly modified shock mounts wrong in your book? Why would an Ossa mar that had its shock mounts modified to replicate the Ossa Gripper also be wrong to you?

Your not part of Yorkshire Classic Club by any chance?

[02-apr]

I assume you mean no converted monoshocks? Trouble is as soon as you say that the you leave it wide open to "convert" a twinshock to take all worth having from a monoshock. Some Fantics are pretty close to and some have already crossed that line.

Anyway whats so wrong with moving the shock mounts? Why is a Majesty ok but a TY250 with similarly modified shock mounts wrong in your book? Why would an Ossa mar that had its shock mounts modified to replicate the Ossa Gripper also be wrong to you?

Your not part of Yorkshire Classic Club by any chance?

Yes I did type wrongly and meant to say no converted monoshocks.

I see nothing wrong in moving suspension mounting points, it was a period mod eventually (but then one of the very first mono yams was converted to twinshock at the time) and have not even hinted that I do. I merely queried the scope of the rule and I think the thread title shows that I could see the intent but also the (probable) error. Much clearer wording should have been used.

I'm not familiar with what other mods are carried out to twinshocks to achieve what you mention in your first para but assume that rules governing suspension would not cover them?

And, ee nay lad, not wi' them.

Edited January 26, 2011 by 2/4

[mattylad]

I seem to remember that Duncan Macdonald offered a service to mod Bultaco frames to Dave Thorpes works spec back in the 70's.

Would these be allowed? To my mind they should be, as should a ty250 twinshock with shocks moved to replicate a majesty.

I think we all know its going down the pre65 route so why not just let it happen without getting stressed but just have fun.

Organisers. Bung everything you don't like in the specials class and be done with it.

The whole issue is impossible to frame without exceptions and even more difficult to police.

[heavywrecker]

So having replaced my knackered 340mm shocks for 360mm one's, on my Montesa 349, I should be okay as I bought them from SM Products?

[ask greeves]

Almost every 'hardcore' pre 65 owner that I know, thier yearly ambition is to ride the pre 65 Scottish 2 day. therefore it follows, that throughout the length and breadth of the UK, these pre 65 bikes are being fettled as to pass the SACU regulations. Only a moron would build a pre 65 that isn't elegible for the Scottish, as and when you wanted to sell it, you'd be greatly limiting your selling market, as most buyers would want to purchase a 'scottish legal' machine. So indirectly the SACU regulations have already been accepted.

[b40rt]

[old trials fanatic]

Almost every 'hardcore' pre 65 owner that I know, thier yearly ambition is to ride the pre 65 Scottish 2 day. therefore it follows, that throughout the length and breadth of the UK, these pre 65 bikes are being fettled as to pass the SACU regulations. Only a moron would build a pre 65 that isn't elegible for the Scottish, as and when you wanted to sell it, you'd be greatly limiting your selling market, as most buyers would want to purchase a 'scottish legal' machine. So indirectly the SACU regulations have already been accepted.

Do you ride much? Talking to riders and looking at their bikes i would say at least 60% of the bikes i see would technically fall foul of the elegability rules for the scottish event. That doesnt mean to say they wouldnt get an entry, just look around the paddock at Kinlochleven, just that they dont fulfil the elegability criteria. Also there are more, more every year actually, who dont give a monkeys about scotland and wouldnt be stupid enough to build a bike that complied with the elegability rules for that event just for one ride a year that they probably will never get anyway.

Remember as we have previously discussed at great length on here there are really only about 80 at the most places that are "balloted" LOL so cross that bridge when you come to it. Wonder how many photos submitted would match the bike ridden ? Nah surely not.

The scottish Pre65, yuk stupid term, is a one off anacronism that is either your holy grail or just a distraction depending on your viewpoint. British Twinshocks is for the whole year.

I would say though that there should be outline rules for British Twinshocks agreed nationally by the ACU, Bob Hope of that one, then at least some sensibility and consistancy might prevail and we could all live happily ever after

Edited January 27, 2011 by Old trials fanatic