Classic Trials rules in Australia - who is interested?

[JC1]

Sybela, yr jumping to numerous uninformed conclusions. To correct just a couple of them; I am a member of WDTC - MA affliated. The people I'm talking with are classic riders & twinshock riders interested in classics. If you read my posts more carefully you might see that I'm not pushing for changes - I'm taking up consensus views of those who wanted changes with good reason, providing relevant info so people can make an informed decision, & seeking to promote ongoing discussion so we don't end up w a last minute ill-conceived rush-job. I have no personal agenda here, but I do have some admin skills to help put consensus ideas into words & possible rules that others can decide on - something that was called for on the other thread. If people don't want rule changes I'm not going to push them thro. I have said that before. From the trials I've been to since I've been in Toowoomba this year, it seems to me we should give considerable tho't/discussion to the causes of such low numbers riding classics. I believe it was Einstein who said, "Insanity is doing the same thing over & over again & expecting a different outcome."

All the best w the trial on Sun. Its a great initiative. I'd be there if I could.

[sybella]

JC1 i You cant expect a club to cater for a small class if where not supporting the club .If every club was to cater to one twin shock and classic trial a year that would be a start and then we would not be doing the same thing over and over. Take Denman NSW title two years ago 30 riders this year 50 .So far for the this weekend we have 32 twinshocks and classics on the farm .My rant is that most people on this thread are not participating in the pre 65 class. You can't expect your club to cater for a class if all your doing is writing about it . Does anybody honestly think that making wholesale changes to the rules that we will get 10 extra riders in the pre 65 class,at the end of the day people got to TURN UP and support the class. More events , suitable sections = more fun . cheers tony bax

[Geoff Lewis]

Hi All, Interesting to note the opinions from two extreme ends of the spectrum, one for 'systematic change' and one from the 'bums on seats' point of view. To get some clear perspective perhaps we need to find out how many people that the changes (If any) may affect. In Victoria there are only two people who are competing regularly through the season on Classic trials bikes. That is me and Geoff Solamano. Or should that be Geoff Solamano and I? I know that there are at least twenty people in Victoria who still own Classic trials bikes who do not compete (there could be more). Three of whom would probably only compete again (if ever) in Australian Championships and not in our usual trials. The rest, would most likely not compete again. The reasons are as varied as those concerned. I have not had a serious inquiry from anyone about getting into classics for years. The subject always seems to come up at Aussie Titles time as the idea of picking up an easy Title seems to appeal to some. Easy? Yeah right! These casual inquiries soon fizzle. Will any changes affect Geoff Solamano and I? No. We compete in Twinshock any way against much more modern bikes ( Geoff wont know himself on the Sprite!) . How many people may these issues affect? How many people are regularly competing in other States? And I don't mean just at Titles time. A State by State breakdown would be interesting. I don't expect to see any improvement in numbers in Victoria with or without changes for the foreseeable future. Twinshock seems to be getting more interest at the moment which doesn't seem to flow on to Classics.
Regards, Geoff

[JC1]

Hi Geoff. I'm a bit stunned by yr assertion about opinions from two extreme ends of the spectrum.

While I sincerely doubt a "rant" on a public forum will draw in any interested parties on the periphery to join the class, I would have tho't his point of getting more bottoms on seats is what we're all after.

And have the 'issues' with the rules had no detrimental effects on the class over the last few years? Or don't they need to be rectified?

Perhaps its the misleading claim of "wholesale changes to the rules". What I saw was numerous calls for a few simple changes to make the class more inclusive (some of which you were arguing for) - ie trimming the sails to catch more wind - changes that appeared quite logical to me & to many others & were only put up on the other thread as a draft for discussion, to be tossed out if so desired (& clearly indicated so).

Does anybody doubt that making more models & parts available in a very limited supply pool (while remaining true to classics) will make the class more affordable & do-able for more people?

I mean no offense but if these are the "extreme ends of the spectrum", what is the middle ground?
What does it offer to move the class forward?

I'd have tho't there's more than one way to move classics forward & get more bottoms on seats &, since the class is in 'dire straits', that the smart money would be on pursuing as many as we reasonably can.

But perhaps I'm badly mistaken.
(Or perhaps its futile discussing such things on a forum)

[The Hell Team]

I would love to see all trials classes prosper, and after seeing first hand the Pre 65 Scottish, anything that can be done to get more bikes and riders in Pre 65 is a good thing.
Now please take my opinion with a grain of salt because I have not competed myself in the class, but I would like to play devil advocate for a minute, for those who want the bikes to stay stock.
I know a few blokes who love "building", modifying and prepping bikes as much as they like riding them, and maybe freeing up the rules so there was more freedom to build something that handled, stopped, and performed better than an original 65, but still looked like a "classic" might encourage some more participation. ....just throwing it out there into the ring with all the other 2 cent bits.
Take for instance MacDonald's ARMAC Cubs. I'd seriously consider getting aboard one of those babies if it was allowed. They look good, but still "classic" (IMHO), and they work.
But it's not legal under our rule structure.
Anyway it was a great weekend at the Denman Championships and the growth in Twinshock is awesome, with some encouragement from the likes of Mr Bax and Lewis I hope the Pre 65 (or 68) class can prosper in the same fashion.
I reckon - more allowable bikes, more freedom, more events, less rules will equal bigger rider numbers

Paul Arnott - absolutely no Classic Trials riding experience AT ALL. (please take this into account when reading the above)!
Ready to be shot down in flames........

[sybella]

Hi all after a great weekend 28 twin shocks 4 classics at the CQTC challenge , there was plenty of discussion regarding pre 65class. There must be a reason why they call it pre 65 . May be I could be wrong but there was only road bikes and the odd scrambler around before 1965 ,no purpose built trials bikes could anybody please correct me if wrong . Jeff sorry to hear the state of classics in vic ,here in qld we have introduced FOUR new riders to our class this year. Looking forward to catching up in vic cheers Tony Bax

[Geoff Lewis]

Hi All, I didn't mean any personal criticism of John or his efforts which I believe have helped to challenge and inform us. I personally wont be around in the class for much longer . Classics in Victoria is all but dead ( My involvement probably helped kill it!) and bums on seats interstate or rule changes wont make any difference now. I still believe the lack of suitable machinery has hampered the class. I will be selling some of my Pre 65 machines in the not too distant future and I hope the new owners will use them as intended but I wont hold my breath. I will no longer comment on this thread.
Regards Geoff.

[Twinshock200]

Hi All
I'm back from the Isle of Man Classic 2 day trial and have been catching up on the latest posts.
By the way Paul, I know the Scottish Pre 65 is pretty good but the Manx had 230 old Classic and TS's over the most fabulous scenery you could imagine, best trial I have ever ridden.
Sorry to hear your thoughts on the Classic scene in Vic Geoff but overall the last 30 years I've seen it go in cycles with more bikes some years and very few in others, I'm sure with a bit of tweaking to the rules it will pick up again, 8 years ago in Qld there were hardly any twinshock bikes competing but look at it now.

I think the problem that arises from all the comments that have been put up on this thread and others is the complexity of some of the proposed rule changes which please some and annoy others and in the end people throw their hands in the air and say "f**k it, too complicated".
That was the way I was thinking over the last few months but after what I've seen in the UK and the Isle of Man I'm convinced that the simple idea of opening eligibility up to Pre 68, 4 speed bikes only, will drag some more bikes out and if, after a couple of years, this works and the "No Spanish" has been deleted from the MOMS we might have a healthier situation than we have now.
JC1's previous lists identify the bikes that could be dragged out and thanks John for that research.

A large part of the answer to the eligibility rules lays in the Supp Regs put out by the clubs running events, Any club can specify a Classic class for Pre 68, or Pre 70 bikes, or Air cooled mono's or just about anything they like as long as they put it in their Supp Regs for the event, obviously they have to go by the MOMs for State and National title events.
Maybe we should put a bit more pressure on the existing clubs to run say, 2 dedicated Classic/TS trials per season, I know for a fact they are easier to lay out than a normal open event, two lines, hard and easy, simple.
Cheers
Galps

[BOGWHEEL]

Thanks Tony for an enjoyable ride at Lowmead. The white lines as they should be (used to be) - flowing and no thought of getting injured.
Roger, have you seen the MQ calendar for this year? There isn't enough free space or officials. I think what CQTC has done (sacrificing a club day) is the way to go. Four rounds plus Conondale?.
But, of course, you need the numbers to run the seperate classes if you are going to make it competitive -
Or do you just run them as fun events?

[JC1]

Hi All, I didn't mean any personal criticism of John or his efforts which I believe have helped to challenge and inform us.

No offense taken Geoff. Just surpised you tho't it extreme. I tho't we were on the same page, & I still do:

I still believe the lack of suitable machinery has hampered the class. .

So do I.

Somebody raised whether purpose built trials bikes were available to the public before 65. I'm no guru on the era, & this is not meant to be a definitive list, but I believe these trials-specific models were available:

Ariel HT3 & HT5
AJS 16C Trials
BSA C15T, Bantam D3 Competition
Cotton Starmaker Trials
CZ-Jawa Trials Type 475
DMW 200 & 250 Trials
DOT Trials
FB Falcon Trials 83/85
Greeves Prospect & Scottish
James Commando L25T, M25T
Matchless G3C Trials
Norman B2C & B4C Trials
Norton 350/500 Trials & 500T
RE Crusader Trials
Scorpion Villiers
Sprite Trials
Triumph Cub TR20
Wasp RT4 - Bul/Villiers/Bantam/Cub/C15/Triumph-twin engined options

Perhaps some were little more than stripped down roadies but many weren't, w diff internal gear ratios, comp ratios, valve timing etc listed along w more obvious external differences for trials competition.