MA rule changes for Twinshock and pre-65

[TriCub]

Lets hope that the rule goes through.
I still can't believe Roger in thinking that a MK1 Amal is a more appropriate carb for any pommy pre-65 bike than the early Jap stuff. To start with the MK1 wasn't made until 1966 so it's not pre-65 and it doesn't even look anything like the original Zenith or Amal type 32 from the trials cubs.
Yes the Scottish pre-65 force the pommy carb rule but most riders have other carbs fitted for the rest of the year and as Roger said they had 180 bikes we are lucky to 10 can we be that fussy.
Actualy if the rule goes through as is, a pre-65 rider with a MK1 Amal could be protested because as a minor component it still has to be "visualy compatible with the period being depicted" and they certainly don't look pre-65.
There is an other flaw with the current rule book that I don't think to many have noticed. It's rule 23.5.0.3 , it states the rubbish about the No Jap or Italian carbs on pommy bikes. That rule applies to all classic machines and the Twin shock are covered by that as well. Not to many Twin shock pommy bikes out ther but there are a few I think. David's Majesty? Is it a pommy bike now, did you fit a MK1 Anal to keep it legal?
Come on Trials Commisioners and MA you need to think about rule changes and get them correct not like that half assed carb thing.
We realy are missing the late Chris Leighfield as a commisioner he was able to make decisions based on facts rather than emotions.

[FM350]

If the anal retentive want period specific Amal carbs fitted, the Monobloc is being produced again now!

[TriCub]

If the anal retentive want period specific Amal carbs fitted, the Monobloc is being produced again now!

Don't tell them that ,they work even worse the MK1.
On those MK1 Anal's , I just finished playing with those MAR Ossa's and to get them to run you have to dump about half a litre of fuel out the tickler. The motors were nice and clean up until then. If I was stupid enough to put one on my Cub the spilt fuel would probably fill up the pionts distributor(yes it still has pionts). They are an environmental nightmare not mention the fire hazard, I think we should ban all carbs with ticklers.

[FM350]

Yes in terms of awfulness the Monobloc is probably worse than the Mk1. Amusingly the UK producers of Anal are at the moment running a series of ads which seem to suggest their carbs are top quality pieces of kit, but seemingly you have to pay extra for features on the UK carbs which are standard on the Indian ones that cost less. Pretty surprising that buyers are being asked to pay more money to have a carb which doesnt wear out so quickly, and that the rapid wear ones are still on the market.................lol

[Twinshock200]

What is becoming obvious in the responses regarding carby's is the fact that everyone is promoting the carb they have on their own bikes whether it be the Keihin on George's 250cc Cub or the Mk1's or Villiers on others, I know several guys with Dellorto's and they too sing the praises of theirs, which to me, indicates that you can make a carby work if you have the patience, cash and know how to set it up right.

Again I ask the question, does the suggested carby eligibility rule change apply to only carb's manufactured before 1965, I think the MA trials commision needs to clarify this before the change gets fully approved.

[FM350]

Why not forget entirely about ridiculous look alike nonsense related to parts like carbs? Bikes like Cubs run very well indeed on properly modified Chinese pit bike carbs which here in the UK can be had for around £20, so is there any real need to insist on a carb which looks slightly different and might cost 4 or 5 times as much?

[Twinshock200]

FM350, would the same apply to forks, frames, hubs, even crankcases, maybe we should just assess the bikes eligibility by the sticker
on the petrol tank !!

[brt650]

Thanks for the rule update David.
Brian

[FM350]

FM350, would the same apply to forks, frames, hubs, even crankcases, maybe we should just assess the bikes eligibility by the sticker
on the petrol tank !!

Thats pretty much the case here in the UK already! I would say major components for P65 class bikes, such as engine, frame, forks, wheel hubs need to be period specific, but in the case of a modern carb its something that anyone can afford, doesnt look much different to original, and most importantly provides much better running.

[TriCub]

Doesn't everyone get nicely wound up over rules.
All I can say is the rules we had worked fine of many years why did we have to change them in 2010, it's like a couple of 5 year olds fighting over a toy in the sand pit.
The rule makers can't expect people to be happy when overnight what has worked for years is changed forcing them to spend up or get out of the sport as happened when the 2011 rule book came out.

Getting to which components that should be original.
I would say if it doesn't wearout and need to be replaced on a semi regular basis, then it should be original or a replica off. If it wears , fails or gets broken use what ever you can get.
Things that wear, Rear shocks, ignitions , internal engine parts , tyres , cable , levers. I could go on but Carbs do wear even the evil Jap ones.

Roger I think the Commision what to make Carbs free but they need to add some extra wording to stop any confusion, reading what is there at the moment to my twisted mind is open to protests.