charlie prescott Posted February 14, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 Hi Guy's. Hi OTF, You must stop eating all them packets of crisps, with out excersize? Totaly out of my leage? but I was just wondering how much one of these "BlingShocks" change hands for?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hondars250 Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 You know not one person has put forward any alternative rules we could use. We as an ACU club used the East Midlands Centre Championship rules to define what was and what was not acceptable. As we are now an AMCA club are you proposing that an AMCA club uses ACU Championship rules to define machine eligability at AMCA events? That would be a first i suppose. The rules were deliberately worded so as not to disadvantage the majority of riders currently riding at the club but to also take into account what bikewise is happening elsewhere i.e. the increasing modernisation of Twinshocks along the lines of what happened to Pre65. Obviously you would prefer the situation to have no brakes put on it and Twinshocks to be allowed to develop into bikes that bear no resemblance to a Bultaco, Ossa, Montesa whatever. Fine if thats your point of view but as you have obviously read our rules which ones are ruining it for everybody? The eligability rules were written to try to encourage more riders to take part on a cheap but useable twinshock or home built British bike using easily available cheap parts available at bike breakers anywhere. However it's the riders of the heavily modernised bikes that are protesting Wonder why? Most clubs have elegability rules it's part of motor sport. At least then you can build a bike to a known set of rules. Are you saying thats a bad thing? Why? Everybody has the choice of shopping where they like and trials riders will ride where they like also thats called personal choice. You cant please all the people all the time and some of them none of the time. Now there isnt a Classic Club in the East Midlands ACU perhaps there are 6-7 or more riders who would like to start one more to their liking? Nothing to stop you. Wish you luck and success Well here you go again off on another rant! I never mentioned any of the comments above. This is the problem here people trying to second guess what other poeple mean and getting it totally wrong. As for the ridrs who no long ride at Peak Classic none of them had trick bikes other than myself, they were always very well turned out and could be mistaken for being trick but are actually very standard and one in particular won the expert twinshock on several occasions and beat all the trick bikes. As I think Woody stated all the trick parts do not give much or any advantage so what's all fuss about. As for the rule not affecting 99% of the riders, I still cannot work that one out, I'm just glad I don't come on this forum often, only when I want cheering up!! I still hope you can turn it round because you have some really good venues and it would be a shame to loose the club. Any way by I've actually got a life and won't be appearing here again it's far to funny for me, I thought they would never dry!! Paul PS If you want a really good laugh check out Bondy on the Bultaco forum, now he is the funniest so far by a long shot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old trials fanatic Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 Hi Guy's. Hi OTF, You must stop eating all them packets of crisps, with out excersize? Totaly out of my leage? but I was just wondering how much one of these "BlingShocks" change hands for?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie prescott Posted February 14, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 Hi Guy's. Hi OTF. After this week on here and with the commitment we now have to the HORSE sport. I may even go back to that. but it would be a shame as you know I am "200%" and more into "Classic Trials Bikes". But you can only try to help most of the people most of the time!!! :closedeyes: Regards Charlie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old trials fanatic Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 (edited) Hi Guy's. Hi OTF. After this week on here and with the commitment we now have to the HORSE sport. I may even go back to that. but it would be a shame as you know I am "200%" and more into "Classic Trials Bikes". But you can only try to help most of the people most of the time!!! :closedeyes: Regards Charlie. Hi Charlie. You musnt let people get to you just because they are too blinkered by vested interest. Your idea was a good one but good ideas dont always get off the launch pad because they get swamped by the aforementioned vested interest brigade. Witness the amount of revolutionary powerplant developments that the motor industry have stomped on because of their vested interest and massive financial investment in the conventional combustion engine. Still dont see what was so abhorrant about having a seperate class for modernised bikes but hay ho Thing is with horses the mods take a lot longer before you can use them. Thats genetics for you Keep at it mate Edited February 15, 2012 by Old trials fanatic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old trials fanatic Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 Interresting how so many people keep saying they fitted a modern front end ONLY because they "picked it up cheap at Telford etc" Just read this on Classic Trials website so at least somebody agrees with me that 38mm forks etc offer an "unfair advantage" ???? "To match the greatly improved rear suspension, we will be fitting modern 38mm forks, as while the stock Honda forks can be uprated, the internal damping system is relatively crude, and is not ideally suited to serious competition use. As well as better suspension the 38mm forks increase the rigidity of the front end, which means more precise steering." Nah they are just cheaper mate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daved444 Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 Interresting how so many people keep saying they fitted a modern front end ONLY because they "picked it up cheap at Telford etc" Just read this on Classic Trials website so at least somebody agrees with me that 38mm forks etc offer an "unfair advantage" ???? "To match the greatly improved rear suspension, we will be fitting modern 38mm forks, as while the stock Honda forks can be uprated, the internal damping system is relatively crude, and is not ideally suited to serious competition use. As well as better suspension the 38mm forks increase the rigidity of the front end, which means more precise steering." Nah they are just cheaper mate. I don't know how many other people have stated that they 'picked them up cheap at Telford' but that's the fact Paul. I paid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big_red_bike Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 I don't know how many other people have stated that they 'picked them up cheap at Telford' but that's the fact Paul. I paid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old trials fanatic Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 (edited) I don't know how many other people have stated that they 'picked them up cheap at Telford' but that's the fact Paul. I paid Edited February 15, 2012 by Old trials fanatic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old trials fanatic Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 Hi agree on this one all modified pre 65 and twinshock in trickshock/specials class .Standard pre 65 and twinshock bikes in normal classes.Only problem is there will be no pre 65 bikes eligible for the standard class. You havent read the rules either have you Mick? I have never looked that close at your beast but which of the rules in British Bike would reclass it as a Trickshox ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 Interresting how so many people keep saying they fitted a modern front end ONLY because they "picked it up cheap at Telford etc" Just read this on Classic Trials website so at least somebody agrees with me that 38mm forks etc offer an "unfair advantage" ???? "To match the greatly improved rear suspension, we will be fitting modern 38mm forks, as while the stock Honda forks can be uprated, the internal damping system is relatively crude, and is not ideally suited to serious competition use. As well as better suspension the 38mm forks increase the rigidity of the front end, which means more precise steering." Nah they are just cheaper mate. The bloke is bound to say this though isn't he as he is selling the product and has to justify it. Interesting as he was one of the biggest critics of modifying twinshocks not too long ago... Honda TLR forks aren't as good as Marzocchis in my opinion as they are like most Jap forks, under sprung and under damped. Fairly easily rectified if needs be by reducing the oil flow by reducing the hole size in the rod and fitting uprated springs or more preload. All depends on your weight and what you want. Nothing that wasn't done back when they were new. Shirty used to modify the Majesty forks for supported riders for the same reason. Normal customer bikes were left stock. As for TLR foks not being suitable for use in 'serious competition', what is 'serious competition'? 38mm forks will give you no advantage whatsoever in your average classic event. The severity of sections is nothing like the sections these bikes were ridden over when they were new. In today's classic club events the suspension oil barely gets warm compared to an early 80s trial. Ride your twinshock in the SSDT (like David Pye) and there probably will be a benefit over long, big, rocky sections and continuous moor crossings. But you need to be a rider of his calibre to notice. I doubt I would. 38mm forks are not needed for classic events, the suspension doesn't get worked hard enough. Probably 90%+ of people riding twinshocks in classic events today couldn't get the maximum from a 1970 Model 49 Bultaco in standard spec. When they can, then they can claim fitting 38mm forks gives them an advantage. Personally I'd rather see twinshocks not fitted with them but I don't object to them for the reasons above. I know 38mm modern forks can sometimes be picked up for less than the cost of rechroming originals (as I'm just having some done now - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big_red_bike Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 You havent read the rules either have you Mick? I have never looked that close at your beast but which of the rules in British Bike would reclass it as a Trickshox ? Hi paul the new rules would not class my bike as a trickshock but it is not a standard pre 65 bike so it and all the other non standard bikes should be in the new trickshock class (i entered in the specials class in the northern bike championship last year).I have nothing against your new class it would be a good idea if all the modified bikes were entered in it but they will not be, the same as the northern bike championship with modified bikes in the normal classes which realy defeats the point of it. Looking at peaks rules and the bikes that normaly compete there i can only think of one twinshock bike that will have to ride in the trickshock class,is it worth having a class for one bike ,theres allready too few bikes in each class ,less classes would be better providing more of a challenge and the championships more worthwhile.As i have said before there are allready routes to suit everyone the bikes we ride dont make that much differance . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 You havent read the rules either have you Mick? I have never looked that close at your beast but which of the rules in British Bike would reclass it as a Trickshox ? Just had a look at your rules and have one or two genuine observations. Twinshock minimum wheelbase 50" - TY175 and mini-Majesty and possibly Whitehawk are less than this. Forks max 36mm - Why 36mm all were 35mm apart from SWM at 38mm. Is it intended to allow Yama Mono front ends (which I don't have an issue with as Yam monos were competing against twinshocks in 1983/4/5 so it was a possible mod then. 38mm Forks - it's a bit woolly. Can only SWM use them or any twinshock. As there are no dating classes in t/s, it's one class that spans 1970 - 1985, therefore it stands to reason that any bike can have 38mm if they are all competing against each other? Maybe needs rewording to clarify exactly what the rule means. Fuel carried in tank above the motor - There is a genuine Bultaco modified in the 70s by Steve Wilson that had the fuel tank and air filter positions reversed (like the later JCM) John Collins owns it now and still rides it. It was ridden in the 70s like this but by definition would be in the specials. There could be other bikes out there like this as people were creating all sorts back then. If someone copied that Bultaco now, does it make it a trick/cheat/special? Tubeless rims - I've said my bit on them... Later engines - How much of an advantage are they, really? It's mainly Fantic or Beta we're talking about. Again, I'm not keen on it but have no real objection. If I fit a 240 Fantic with a reed valve it is perfectly acceptable. Tamaha TY250 had them in 1973 as a production bike and set a precedent. Ossa UK were using them in 1975. Numerous privateer bikes were converted in that era. So there can be no objection to any twinshock (in the absence of cut-off date classes) being fitted with a reed. So, back to the Fantic. What is the difference between me fitting the reed to the 240 or putting in a 245 reed motor which saves me trying to find someone to convert the 240 for me. I can't see any. I also wouldn't bother I have to add, as the Fantics 200, 240 and 300 have more than enough GO for today's classic sections - see previous post. But if some choose to do it I'm not going to object. If I had a Fantic 240 and put the latest 307 motor in it, I'm not suddenly going to win this year's Normandale championship. My results will be the same. Similarly, if David Pye removed his 38mm forks and later motor and put his 300 back to standard, he isn't going to drop behind me in the results. I can see what you want to do and that you have concerns over the direction you think twinshocks is heading, but I see the reality differently. I don't think it will ever go the Pre65 route. Even the oldest twinshocks are quite reasonable to ride in terms of handling, weight, steering and suspension. Even the worst of them like the KT250 (sorry KT, I loved you but you weren't the best ride) is still competitive in a modern B trial and I actually won a few B standard modern club trials on it, against other twinshocks and modern bikes. So there isn't the need for them to be heavily modified to make them rideable like a god-awful standard Pre65 bike. These 'super' twinshocks don't really exist. Most of the mods are cosmetic and remodelling, performance wise they aren't putting those bikes light years ahead of the standard machine - like in Pre65 Things can always change I guess but I know from competing all over the place that most riders agree on where the boundaries are. There will always be one or two who want to 'push it' but that is human nature - in all walks of like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon v8 Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 Just had a look at your rules and have one or two genuine observations. Twinshock minimum wheelbase 50" - TY175 and mini-Majesty and possibly Whitehawk are less than this. Forks max 36mm - Why 36mm all were 35mm apart from SWM at 38mm. Is it intended to allow Yama Mono front ends (which I don't have an issue with as Yam monos were competing against twinshocks in 1983/4/5 so it was a possible mod then. 38mm Forks - it's a bit woolly. Can only SWM use them or any twinshock. As there are no dating classes in t/s, it's one class that spans 1970 - 1985, therefore it stands to reason that any bike can have 38mm if they are all competing against each other? Maybe needs rewording to clarify exactly what the rule means. Fuel carried in tank above the motor - There is a genuine Bultaco modified in the 70s by Steve Wilson that had the fuel tank and air filter positions reversed (like the later JCM) John Collins owns it now and still rides it. It was ridden in the 70s like this but by definition would be in the specials. There could be other bikes out there like this as people were creating all sorts back then. If someone copied that Bultaco now, does it make it a trick/cheat/special? Tubeless rims - I've said my bit on them... Later engines - How much of an advantage are they, really? It's mainly Fantic or Beta we're talking about. Again, I'm not keen on it but have no real objection. If I fit a 240 Fantic with a reed valve it is perfectly acceptable. Tamaha TY250 had them in 1973 as a production bike and set a precedent. Ossa UK were using them in 1975. Numerous privateer bikes were converted in that era. So there can be no objection to any twinshock (in the absence of cut-off date classes) being fitted with a reed. So, back to the Fantic. What is the difference between me fitting the reed to the 240 or putting in a 245 reed motor which saves me trying to find someone to convert the 240 for me. I can't see any. I also wouldn't bother I have to add, as the Fantics 200, 240 and 300 have more than enough GO for today's classic sections - see previous post. But if some choose to do it I'm not going to object. If I had a Fantic 240 and put the latest 307 motor in it, I'm not suddenly going to win this year's Normandale championship. My results will be the same. Similarly, if David Pye removed his 38mm forks and later motor and put his 300 back to standard, he isn't going to drop behind me in the results. I can see what you want to do and that you have concerns over the direction you think twinshocks is heading, but I see the reality differently. I don't think it will ever go the Pre65 route. Even the oldest twinshocks are quite reasonable to ride in terms of handling, weight, steering and suspension. Even the worst of them like the KT250 (sorry KT, I loved you but you weren't the best ride) is still competitive in a modern B trial and I actually won a few B standard modern club trials on it, against other twinshocks and modern bikes. So there isn't the need for them to be heavily modified to make them rideable like a god-awful standard Pre65 bike. These 'super' twinshocks don't really exist. Most of the mods are cosmetic and remodelling, performance wise they aren't putting those bikes light years ahead of the standard machine - like in Pre65 Things can always change I guess but I know from competing all over the place that most riders agree on where the boundaries are. There will always be one or two who want to 'push it' but that is human nature - in all walks of like. Spot on Woody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
totalshell Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 well all throughly discussed deceminated and disagreed about. I have nt riden any of the peaks trials but i will this year BUT i have a big caveat.. 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.