Cub barrels.

[oldslowcoach]

Thanks George,
My Cub is something in the order of 15kgs heavier than yours so I think I need to do more than just add Yamaha front end. Anyway, I've promised myself I won't post anymore until I have riden the Yamacub in a couple of trials and maybe seen some of these M10 / early bullybitsa's in action

P

[TriCub]

Thanks George,
My Cub is something in the order of 15kgs heavier than yours so I think I need to do more than just add Yamaha front end. Anyway, I've promised myself I won't post anymore until I have riden the Yamacub in a couple of trials and maybe seen some of these M10 / early bullybitsa's in action

P

Grab a set of Bantam wheels and some second hand Jap alloy rims and you will probably save close to 10 kgs. The reduction in unsprung weight helps a lot with traction and steering. That's the main weight saving area on my bike.

[Geoff Lewis]

Hi All, Seems there are a few who still don't want spanish or are unsure, I don't care one way or the other any more. What really concerns me, and should concern others, is the fact that in the Who's interested thread there are only sixteen people in total who have replied in Australia, one of whom replied just to tell us to leave him out, and two who are not riding in Australia anymore anyway . If in fact that is reflective of the lack of interest in the class, I can only conclude that we are all but sunk! It is obvious that we face a few almost insurmountable problems with our slice of the sport of 'Mototrials' if Classics is to survive. Availability of siutable machinery has always been an issue (Deep pockets can overcome this). The ever rising costs of the sport (Not just restricted to our class) The lack of agreement re. eligibility. The huge variation of ability within such a small group. The perception of how uncool the class is as viewed by other current trials riders ( And the perception that we're not very good riders anyway is part of that). The Class is just an easy way to pick up an Aussie title so needn't be supported at any other times. I think we should be pushing the positive aspects of the sport and to do that we need a united front and I am not seeing any sign of that happening any time soon. That Classic, sitting in the shed, may soon have no use at all but as a curious conversation piece if we don't get it together. I suggest we start to put forward what we think are the good things about our hobby and perhaps get some more insight in to the way to go forward. What motivates us to ride what we ride! What might motivate others to join us?
Regards Geoff.

[Twinshock200]

Hi
Been travelling for 24 hours. its interesting to see how the debate has developed while I've been off the air, at least we know a lot more about the Bultaco history !!!!!!!! but this isn't solving anything.
As Geoff points out we have about fifteen guys checked into the "who's interested" topic and it seems the "Cub Barrels" debate is disintegrating.
In a public forum its going to be extremely difficult to get a resolution to the "Pre 65" debate but if we don't get this thing underway pretty soon then I can see several contributors getting the S**ts and pulling the pin.
Going back to the original problem, where are all the Pre 65 riders and bikes, do we need to change the rules ???
I've given my thoughts on how we can grow the grade but I don't see too many other positive ideas to increase rider numbers apart from introducing more rules that I believe will put guys off.
No one has come back with a date for suggestions to be put forward by and if we don't have this as a guideline we might as well toss this around in its current fashion for the next twelve months and think about it next year.
At the very least I think we need to get 5/6 nominated guys around a table (or a computer or phone) to nut a few ideas out, unless someone drives this its going to fizzle out.
Galps

[JC1]

Don't give up guys. There are numerous "passionate & compelling tho'ts" here worth persuing. Perhaps one way forward is to summarize whats been said, looking for common tho'ts.

Having just re-read the thread, I'll stick my neck out & post four salient points widely agreed upon (with supporting quotes):

OBJECTIVE: To keep Classics going & growing
"We all say we want to grow & develop classic rider numbers
"main objective is to keep the class going & perhaps grow
"the purpose is to grow the grade & make the rules clearer for everyone to understand

1. Must be more inclusive; broaden the base/appeal
"we must pick up our game & make the sport more inclusive
"to get classics going we need to be more reasonable
"have to look at the bigger picture & allow some new bikes in by changes to eligibility
"possibly need to relax some of the rules to allow more people in the class if its to survive
(some suggested pre68, 70, 72 cut-off)

2. Maintain continuity/stability in the rules
"rules need to be in place & left alone if you want a stable class... changing rules every year is a killer for any class
"need to lock in changes, good or bad, for 5yrs then review

3. Give sufficient scope & flexibilty to ensure availability of bikes & parts
"Availability of suitable machinery is always an issue
"need to be sufficiently pragmatic (interpreting 'visually indistinguishable') cos these old bikes are wearing out
"Wouldn't it be better to allow later forks so that people didn't have to spend money on cheaters

4. Ensure simpler, clearer rulebook
"having a long list of rules to comply with will put many off
"I don't want a heap of rules & measurements
"most guys I know say the rules are too anal
"others maybe interested if the rulebook looks a bit more user-friendly

Caveat: "Keeping it simple is good but we somehow need to limit the mods & trick components or super-expensive specials will kill the class."


Surely those points are self-evident & true; perhaps even stating the obvious. But they may well provide a framework for the way forward, systematically working thro how to apply them.

(Section severity was another common point, but its beyond the scope of the rulebook)

Now to pose a few pertinent questions:

How much interest can (effectively) a 2 or 3 model class attract in Oz?
Is there currently anywhere for Anglians, Sprites, Dalesmans, Wassells, Cottons, M27/49s, Pennines, early Cotas, Pathfinders or 'Gaunt-ish' Japanese specials etc to realistically compete?
Would "Circa 67 4speed" (allowing any period 4sp model) better define the Classic class (than "pre65") & open it up sufficiently?
Would more classes/sub-classes encourage more participation?
Have the existing sub-classes been effective in growing Classics?
Would we be better served by diff Classics sub-classes? eg 4sp, 5sp, Specials
Since Twinshock spans 20yrs yet draws only 40-50 (??) riders in Oz, what can we reasonably expect from Pre65/68/70/72?
Considering the technological advances over the effective time-spans involved, what cut-off would give a better balance between classic & twinshock & be more suitably inclusive for Classics?

(Apologies for loong post. Or if I'm uninformed)

[TerrY]

Gentlemen,
Regarding the Timelines for proposals, I looked up the 2013 MOMS on P40 and a proposal from a Club, SCB or Individual is to be submitted to MA by 22 March.
So time is of the essence now. Maybe a driving person for these changes ( Roger or George ) could provide notice to MA by 22 March on the form on P41 that this forum is in progress and that the detailed Rules be provided by another date eg end April. This may buy time for the forum to thrash out the rules in time for MA to follow the process on P40.

Hope this helps,
TerrY

[Twinshock200]

Thanks for coming up with that date Terry, I thought it was more like September they had to be in and therefore we had a chance of getting agreement on some changes.
I think most would agree that we have very little chance of reaching a positive and mutually agreed set of changes by late March, unless the majority disagree.
I guess it would be possible to explain to sub committee's that this debate is happening and what would be the latest we could submit something, worth asking the question.

As an individual I am asking any member of my local Qld trials sub committee, who I'm sure are watching this thread, to let me know if this request can be taken up by your sub committee and put to the MA Trials Commission, I can be contacted on 07 5549 2084, cheers

I would prefer to have a neutral administrator guiding this proces rather than George or myself, I think our views are pretty well known and I for one wouldn't like to be seen as pursuing my own personal ideas and pushing them through as, I'm sure, George wouldn't either.
I like the way JC1 has summed it up, maybe he might like to act as the chairman of this discussion, Who are you JC1 ?????

When the suggestions get finalised it would be appropriate for the wider Classic/ trials fraternity to vote on them and we accept the results that should be locked in for 5years (or more) or up for review in two years.

By the way I've been back in the country for 24 hours now and its confirmed to me already this is the best place in the world to be.
Galps

[TriCub]

I'd like to ask Terry to be our spokesperson. I've always found him to be rational when rules have been discussed in the past and he was able to find out the relevent dates.
How about it Terry?

[JC1]

22 Mar is a week today!

I just rang MAQ & was told (by some lady who didn't sound too knowledgeable on the issue!) that you'd have to have the changes in by then, not just a notification that something is coming.

They require 1 form per ammendment, which possibly would mean quite a few forms, tho the forms are quite simple.


Roger, I left a brief intro to myself on the other 'interested-parties' thread. Being a newcomer I'm not really in the loop yet, nor a member of any club.

I'd much rather someone else be the co-ordinator/spokesman, but if everyone passes the buck & nobody does it, or the arguing continues, this opportunity will obviously be missed.

If nobody else is willing I suppose I'd give it a go. Somebody will have to act fast if you don't want to miss it.

Perhaps some guys need to meet this w/end if you don't want to miss that deadline. But there's a trial on Sunday so how many could? (eg Sat) Very few probably. Such short notice too.

I'm just trying to help you guys come to some consensus.


Having read the rules/MOMs on MA website, I think George is correct: you'll "stand a much better chance of getting a change if if not too radical"

[JC1]

Geoff, don't be too discouraged that there's only 15 declaring an interest in the other thread. It's not for interest in classic competition, but "interest in what happens with the eligibility rules".


Whoever becomes spokesman/co-ordinator (Terry, yr welcome to do it), since time is now of the essence if you want to meet that deadline, perhaps its time to get the ball rolling by starting to vote.

The 1st relevant clause in MOMs is cut-off date.

What's yr preference (endeavouring to keep the essence of Classics while making it sufficiently more inclusive)?

Pre68?
Pre70?
Pre72?
Other? (please state)

Perhaps if we can't get reasonable consensus on that its pointless trying to meet next Fri deadline