02-apr Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 I don't believe the SACU has any rules on what is or is not eligible, I certainly don't recall seeing any in their "handbook" and there's no controversy at normal trials that I have heard of(but I could be wrong). The famous trial at Kinlochleven has its own rules which are drawn up by the E&D as far as I am aware. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 so the only issues you have with the areil are the yolks and fork legs.. hardly top end performance enhancing are they.. equally the 'missing' fork gaitors arent going to sink the ship are they so how would a bike of this quality fare i your brit twin shocks.. simple just as well as it does in p65. how much cheaper would it be to build a bike in brit twin shocks to this std? not one penny. the most effective way of increasing ease of participation and reducing costs ( which i assume is the basis for your argument) is to have clear and concise rules. i would hold the p65 scottish rules this year for rigids as been the best example to date. i understand that your club is to host a round of the northern bike series, so why not use that as a position to ensure bikes are in the correct class and that going forward the classes have clear and consice rules. a std bike is cheaper than any special or bitsa it may not spin on a sixpence or climb everest but it should be able to compete on a par with similar bikes. i very much suspect that the adoption of rules similer to the p65 rigids would have the support of a large number of riders. 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b40rt Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 I'm curious why the Scottish Pre-65 and its organisers are constantly criticised for not applying their rules to the letter, and yet no one seems willing to put names to all these "cheats" entered on unsporting bikes. They must know their bikes do not comply, either in spirit or reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack_the_lad Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 so the only issues you have with the areil are the yolks and fork legs.. hardly top end performance enhancing are they.. equally the 'missing' fork gaitors arent going to sink the ship are they so how would a bike of this quality fare i your brit twin shocks.. simple just as well as it does in p65. how much cheaper would it be to build a bike in brit twin shocks to this std? not one penny. the most effective way of increasing ease of participation and reducing costs ( which i assume is the basis for your argument) is to have clear and concise rules. i would hold the p65 scottish rules this year for rigids as been the best example to date. i understand that your club is to host a round of the northern bike series, so why not use that as a position to ensure bikes are in the correct class and that going forward the classes have clear and consice rules. a std bike is cheaper than any special or bitsa it may not spin on a sixpence or climb everest but it should be able to compete on a par with similar bikes. i very much suspect that the adoption of rules similer to the p65 rigids would have the support of a large number of riders. Well said.Have just done a little digging but I can't see where OTF tells us how much he has spent building a very shinny trick James does this mean you want a foot in both camps. Anyway you have not said which club has agreed in priciple to this new format of rules. Would you like to enlighten us or is this club just the same as some of the quotes about how pre 65 clubs in the way they go about their business. The PJ1 rounds have been quoted the organizing club have a comprehensive set of rules the quote Ariel would comply but the two British Twinshocks would not. PS I'm to a very angry man just a person that is down to earth and cannot cut the bulls.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack_the_lad Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 You seem a very angry person???? I don Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie prescott Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 Hi Guy's It has been suggested to me this afternoon, that the only ruling for a "British Twin Shock" would be, that the engine was British, and the brakes were single leading drums, and it had two rear shock-units. and was fitted with trials tyres, and that would be the only ruling for the class. I think it is a bit drastic, I would add "Keeping it looking British",with a sensible seat height, but,if these four rules only applied it would solve the problem to the class in one. The bike would not be trying to be Pre65. It was also suggested that this would help clubs sort out the classes to put bikes in better, as at the present it is just a nightmare. There will be a "Brit-Shock" class at the Classic Trials Show this year, for just such bikes, and the sections will be "Easy" for this class. (if I have my way), and you enter? (The same bike ruling as last year will be applied to the rest of the classes) Regards Charlie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
totalshell Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 i have on the desk in front of me 'classic bike' magazine dated january 1983. it contains a SIX page article regarding the 'threat' to pre65 bikes from the introduction of b40's! the author non other than acknowledegd expert don morley. he even goes to the lengths of weighing std trials versions and comparing them to those used by works rides,a 60ilb weight saving is the norm with 70lb been the max saving and 50lb the least, he acknowledges the practice of works efforts cutting and shutting frames using yolks from other makes/ models he specifically mentions gorden jacksons 350ajs quoting 220lb contrasting that with a Comerfords cub at 226lb mention is made of the efforts to get all the works bikes that he tested for the article ( ajs, areil,b40,bb32/34, 350 re, 500 triumph) to have a wheelbase of 52.5 inches he clearly advocates swapping the forks to nortons for thier action whilst acknowledging the light weight of the re forks. he concludes the article with these very words.. '' the big bikes are still avaialable and can even be lightened or shortened to competitive status, if the owner is prepared to do what we actually did in those far off classic days and use a hacksaw. alternatively, owners who want to ride a pristine catalogue machinecan continue to do so at considerable disadvantage. that is there choice, and rather than banning b40's cubs, c15t's, and unit triumphs perhaps they should be placed in a different class'' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old trials fanatic Posted January 31, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 (edited) Well said.Have just done a little digging but I can't see where OTF tells us how much he has spent building a very shinny trick James does this mean you want a foot in both camps. Anyway you have not said which club has agreed in priciple to this new format of rules. Would you like to enlighten us or is this club just the same as some of the quotes about how pre 65 clubs in the way they go about their business. The PJ1 rounds have been quoted the organizing club have a comprehensive set of rules the quote Ariel would comply but the two British Twinshocks would not. PS I'm to a very angry man just a person that is down to earth and cannot cut the bulls.. Dig all you like havent ridden the James for over a year so you didnt dig that deep or even well. Never kept the bills but approx Edited January 31, 2011 by Old trials fanatic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack_the_lad Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 Hi Guy's It has been suggested to me this afternoon, that the only ruling for a "British Twin Shock" would be, that the engine was British, and the brakes were single leading drums, and it had two rear shock-units. and was fitted with trials tyres, and that would be the only ruling for the class. I think it is a bit drastic, I would add "Keeping it looking British",with a sensible seat height, but,if these four rules only applied it would solve the problem to the class in one. The bike would not be trying to be Pre65. It was also suggested that this would help clubs sort out the classes to put bikes in better, as at the present it is just a nightmare. There will be a "Brit-Shock" class at the Classic Trials Show this year, for just such bikes, and the sections will be "Easy" for this class. (if I have my way), and you enter? (The same bike ruling as last year will be applied to the rest of the classes) Regards Charlie. Can't fault that Charlie I have had a quick look in the back of the van as my bike is still there because the jet was was frozen and it looks like swan neck cub will fit the bill also i'm a beginner I will enter I can see the flood gates opening now. Jack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 I'm curious why the Scottish Pre-65 and its organisers are constantly criticised for not applying their rules to the letter, and yet no one seems willing to put names to all these "cheats" entered on unsporting bikes. They must know their bikes do not comply, either in spirit or reality. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monty_jon Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 (edited) For somebody new to trials you, seem to think the wheels are broken and not turning in Pre 65? I rode in a trial this weekend that must have had 50 riders and quite a few new faces so I would nothing is broken so it dont need fixing. PS just take a long hard look at twinshocks it must be the up and coming class in British trials and lots of people are build trick twinshock. The down side to this is that there will be less forks for converting to pre 65 forks. Yes, I’m new to trials, but not Pre65 racing! I’ve been riding Pre65 bikes for 25 years and know quite a few people involved with pre65 trials (and organising bodies) they all say the same. “The sport needs new blood and people cannot get there head around all the trickery involved” Me personally I’m not too bothered, I’m only doing it for a bit of fun The only thing that makes me sad is Pre65 was fun it was a bunch of guys having a good time on old British bikes hardly any rules or problems You’ve asked OTF his club, what’s your’s? Edited January 31, 2011 by Monty_Jon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack_the_lad Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 Dig all you like havent ridden the James for over a year so you didnt dig that deep or even well. Never kept the bills but approx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack_the_lad Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 Yes, I Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ask greeves Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 (edited) I must respond, there is no hidden agenda. Everything we do is completely above board, we've made no secret, that we are trying to purchase the free worlds over supply of magnesium and titanium. From our underground factory in the 'black country' our 6 station cnc's are going 24hrs a day, trying to forfill the order from 'the Sultan of Ranipoor' for magnesium tiger cub hubs, magnesium heads and barrels and titanium stanchions and associated nuts and bolts. The Ranipoor royal signal display team are updating thier fleet of rather old and tatty HT5's for use around the middle east. I must confess, we do have agents throughout the UK, looking for and purchasing the right Norton Roadholder sliders, and possible that is why only the wrong side is sometimes available on e-bay. These sort of export orders create for us Petro Dollars, which can then be used to 'grease the palms' of the 'right people' so that we can develop our next generation of HT5's. We are looking for staff, so if you have a genuine interest in pre 65 Trials Ariels, and if you've had experience working for a formula one team, especially 5th tier digital electronic ignitions or nano technology pre-preg carbon composites, we would look forward to hearing from you. Edited January 31, 2011 by ask greeves Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 As Totalshell quoted where Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.