charlie prescott Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 Hi Guys. Hi Dave, I must say I had not took note of the bolt on subframe, But had been told that all Ariel's now needed bolt on footrest to seat struts to comply. OK you know I have the Scott Ellis replica bike, with the bolt on Triumph Cub subframe, and as this was the frame that Harry Foster coppied for the first "Otter" frame, and that then one of these frame's were later lent to Howard at Faber to copy for the Faber "Otter" frame. Would you think the boy would now have a better chance of getting an entry on this bike with C15F engine from 1966? This bike has forks fitted from a WD B40 from 1968, the ones with the damper rods inside!! But it also has a shaved down B25 barrel but I have made a new pushrod tube, out of alloy. Or should I still send the entry for the Mk3 Faber Cub, and braize on some nuts and bolts? Regards Charlie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 Or should I still send the entry for the Mk3 Faber Cub, and braize on some nuts and bolts? Regards Charlie. HaHa - like it Charlie To be honest I haven't a clue where you stand with those parts. Didn't realise that about the Ariels though - not that I know much about Ariels anyway My questions to Cubette were out of genuine interest as he started the post off and I'm genuinely interested on his view about the Bantam and whether he would ban someone from future events if they entered on a bike like that - or does he think it's acceptable Disclaimer No desire to harm, direspect, disrupt or undermine any particular individual, club, body, set of rules or anything else anyone can think of, was intended in the writing of these comments.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 Mucked up that post a bit - I meant to also say that I did ask the club last year about the Faber MK3 and they reckoned it would be ok but the bolt-up subframe clause is still in the regs for this year, so who knows. The goalposts seem to move annually now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old trials fanatic Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 (edited) Mucked up that post a bit - I meant to also say that I did ask the club last year about the Faber MK3 and they reckoned it would be ok but the bolt-up subframe clause is still in the regs for this year, so who knows. The goalposts seem to move annually now. Find that hard to believe Thing is where on the regs does it mention Ariels needing bolt on footrest to seat struts? This is my point exactly there needs to be a full, explicit and precise eligability sheet openly published for all to see so anybody entering can comply with it. Then if a particular mod is not covered nobody can complain. Theres too much nod and a wink and "understanding" going on. Is it too much to ask that they publish a full compliance list ? obviously because they dont the status quo suits their agenda. How the hell are you supposed to build a bike thats eligable if you dont know what is and what isnt eligable ? Whatever happens i bet you will still see some very dubious bikes finish in the top 30 at the event because they need certain people competing to encourage spectators who buy programmes. They have to make money to pay for it after all and it must cost a pretty penny to put on. Re the Bantam i'd let it in. If i's who i think it is then it'll be there anyway. Then again as i said before it's their event not ours and if they want to take their ball away it's their perogative. Edited October 25, 2012 by old trials fanatic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack_the_lad Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 (edited) What's all the fuss about? The regs are out and they state what is eligible. My bike was entered last year a tiger cub. I was also told not bring it back in its current form next year. But a long with a few other people they did tell us what they would like changing. It’s not a problem a few simple fixes to make the rear suspension mounts to make it look more like cub. None of the modification will upset the geometry of the bike. The engine is now running the correct shape barrel and head for a pre65 engine. Edited October 25, 2012 by jack_the_lad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old trials fanatic Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 Whets all the fuss about? The regs are out and they state what is eligible. My bike was entered last year a tiger cub. I was also told not bring it back in its current form next year. But a long with a few other people they did tell us what they would like changing. It’s not a problem a few simple fixes to make the rear suspension mounts to make it look more like cub. None of the modification will upset the geometry of the bike. The engine is now running the correct shape barrel and head for a pre65 engine. Bill ok you have made "rectifications" to your bike in line with what you were told. Where on the regs are these stipulations ? I cant find them! As per my previous post how can you be expected to build an eligable bike if you dont know what is and isnt eligable ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old trials fanatic Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 Hi Guys. Hi Dave, I must say I had not took note of the bolt on subframe, But had been told that all Ariel's now needed bolt on footrest to seat struts to comply. OK you know I have the Scott Ellis replica bike, with the bolt on Triumph Cub subframe, and as this was the frame that Harry Foster coppied for the first "Otter" frame, and that then one of these frame's were later lent to Howard at Faber to copy for the Faber "Otter" frame. Would you think the boy would now have a better chance of getting an entry on this bike with C15F engine from 1966? This bike has forks fitted from a WD B40 from 1968, the ones with the damper rods inside!! But it also has a shaved down B25 barrel but I have made a new pushrod tube, out of alloy. Or should I still send the entry for the Mk3 Faber Cub, and braize on some nuts and bolts? Regards Charlie. How about get some photos of any commitee members bike who is entered and build a replica of that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack_the_lad Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 (edited) It does mention the mods they asked for in the regs( silhouette) the top suspension mounts do not look like tiger cub. Its not a big job to do the mods. There regs are what they expect someone to follow if the want to ride in Scotland. If you dont like them dont enter. They seem to be asking less than they at some clubs in England. IF YOU DO NOT LIKE THE REGS DONT ENTER? Edited October 25, 2012 by jack_the_lad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 Jack - someone else started this topic with some fairly critical remarks of riders who were excluded. It's not my intention with what I've said to drag up old arguments or start some sort of boring witch hunt - all been done to death before. I'm just interested in the originator's opinion of the Bantam and yours as well. The regs aren't as straightforward as Cubette or yourself are implying are they? Look at the Bantam and tell me if you think that it meets the various criteria in terms of silhouette or frame design. Again, I'd like to make it absolutely clear that I don't have a problem with the bike and wouldn't refuse it an entry to any trial. Neither am I advocating that the bike shouldn't be allowed as I really don't care and it certainly isn't my intention to have someone kicked out of the trial, so if you know who the bike belongs to, or think you do as there are a few of these, please keep it to yourself. So, in your opinion, based upon your own reasoning, would you say the Bantam complies or not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack_the_lad Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 (edited) name='woody' timestamp='1351188898' post='314776']Jack - someone else started this topic with some fairly critical remarks of riders who were excluded. It's not my intention with what I've said to drag up old arguments or start some sort of boring witch hunt - all been done to death before. I'm just interested in the originator's opinion of the Bantam and yours as well. The regs aren't as straightforward as Cubette or yourself are implying are they? Look at the Bantam and tell me if you think that it meets the various criteria in terms of silhouette or frame design. Again, I'd like to make it absolutely clear that I don't have a problem with the bike and wouldn't refuse it an entry to any trial. Neither am I advocating that the bike shouldn't be allowed as I really don't care and it certainly isn't my intention to have someone kicked out of the trial, so if you know who the bike belongs to, or think you do as there are a few of these, please keep it to yourself. So, in your opinion, based upon your own reasoning, would you say the Bantam complies or not? [/u] Well you need to speek to to jim Pickering he may have the answer you require as they spoke to in Scotland. Edited October 25, 2012 by jack_the_lad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 Nicely side-stepped Jack but I thought the regs were clear...... So, just interested in what you think. It's not one of Jim's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old trials fanatic Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 It does mention the mods they asked for in the regs( silhouette) the top suspension mounts do not look like tiger cub. Its not a big job to do the mods. There regs are what they expect someone to follow if the want to ride in Scotland. If you dont like them dont enter. They seem to be asking less than they at some clubs in England. IF YOU DO NOT LIKE THE REGS DONT ENTER? Bill i've just re read the regs and nowhere does it mention the words "silhouette" anyway just check the definition of silhouette in the OED and that wouldnt cover the "rectifications" you and others have made either. Again you refer to "they spoke to" which "they" quite possibly did but i still reiterate and i cant say it any clearer. There is nothing in the regs that mention the "rectifications" you were instructed to make. I have extracted the section on frame and engine from the regs to substantiate my statement.This would also allow the Bantam Woody illustrated to be eligable but doesnt explain why you had to modify your bike other than to follow the personal bias and whimsey of "somebody" at last years trial. I assume this person you spoke to speaks for the club and will apply this unwritten rule blindly to ALL competitors? Frame Pre ’65 design only. The rear subframe must resemble the original and be identifiable as such. Machines fitted with a bolt-on rear subframe must retain this feature. Triumph Tiger Cub machines must be fitted with a frame which has tube construction and “swan neck” steering head. Engine/Gearbox No Reed valves. No hydraulic clutch operation. No BSA/Triumph B25 type square fin barrel/head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack_the_lad Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 Come on stop playing on words Identifiable and silhouette to me mean the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 Still no opinion on the Bantam then Jack? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie prescott Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 Hi Guys. Ho No, I took Howard's Word that the Faber Mk3 Cub Frame was OK for Scotland Pre 65.So spent the £750 on the frame. Now what you guys tell me it is not? I had the frame in my jig today to put on a couple of brackets , and what I read earlier decided to lop the sub frame off so that I could now fit a bolt on one. N ow I read the frame needs to have a swan neck? Well I am not chopping the frame up anymore so unless the boy wants to put an engine in the ex WD B40 frame,same as 1964 trials BSA s, Then I am throwing in the towel on the event before starting, And ripping up the entry form, He did so want to have a ride in this trial, and me giving him a bike to ride was the only way. Regards Charlie 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.