2015 Proposed rule changes

[JC1]

Allan,

David & George (TriCub) are on the right track with their answers last night.

Under the proposed changes the M10, along with late C15s & Bantams & the like which are currently not eligible for pre65, will compete with modified pre-68 bikes in the proposed new Specials class, as is specifically stated in clauses i), ii) & iii) of the proposed new rules under Specials:

Special
i) Machines first available to the general public before 1 January 1968,
ii) Any such machines that have been modified to provide the ground clearance or chassis performance consistent with the Post
Classic era,
iii) D10/14 Bantam, BSA C15F/G, M10 Bultaco, and aftermarket-framed machines are eligible for this category (not Pre-1965).

ie whether the M10s etc are standard or modified they'll compete in the proposed Specials class, not pre65 or Post Classic (Twin-shock)


I can also confirm that the proposal submitted to MA asked for clause iii) under Post-Classic (regarding modified bikes) to be deleted completely, to save any confusion, because it is replaced almost verbatum by clause ii) under Specials (quoted above)

I can only surmise that the failure to remove it from the proposed new rules on their site is an oversight by MA & I have already brought this to their attention (politely). So yes, (in answer to your question) the Rules for Post Classics should be adjusted accordingly & hopefully will be in due course.


Regarding what modifications would be allowed, the wording of the proposed new clause under Specials (ie new Clause d ii) is deliberately almost identical to the one it replaced (under Post Classic).

That is, the modifications allowed or not allowed for determining pre65 eligibility are exactly the same as they were before, but under the proposed new rules substantially modified bikes - whether pre65 or pre68 - will compete in the new Specials category instead of being bumped up into Post Classics (Twin-shocks).

Such Specials will still be subject to the rules on major & minor components for the pre-68 era (tho aftermarket frames will be allowable)

George summed up modifications appropriately:

As for modification, in the past moving footpegs and fitting bash plates seems to have been ok but cutting frames to lift motors or removing lower frame tube to improve ground clearance is out. Moving rear suspension mounts would also be improving chassis performance. Rear sub frames, don't know but my opinion would be if it is lowered at the seat or narrowed it would also improve chassis performance.

There appeared to be broad consensus in the classic community that pre-65 should be for fairly standard machines & that existing pre65 competitors & their bikes should not be disadvantaged, so the proposed changes deliberately set out to maintain that & remove discrimination against country of manufacture since that was non-existent back in the day. Apart from removal of that discrimination, pre65 remains exactly as it was. Let's not lose sight of that. Alongside it, a new class is proposed for those who so desire it.

So for example, an eligible Cub, Bantam, M3/M4 Bultaco or Impala based Pre-65 Classic could have alloy/fibreglass tank, airbox, oil tank & bashplate, relocated footpegs, removed/smaller seat, suitable exhaust, longer shocks, shortened swingarm etc, but would have to have period frame, forks, hubs etc.

If people want to 'push the boundaries' &/or test allowable limits for Pre-65 by rake or subframe mods or removal of the cradle tube(s) then they run the risk of exclusion by scrutineer or protest. That risk & responsibility is entirely on their own heads, as the extra proposed new clause under Eligibilty is designed to reinforce:
The responsibility for proving eligibility is on the individual seeking approval.

[sybella]

It's funny how the puppet masters get to control a class that neither has ridden in in the last four years ,yes pissed off .When will the clubs get to vote on how our sport progresses,or does the commission just take advice from puppet masters.

[brownie]

Why get pissed off looks like pre65 stays the same but we have a new class pre68 or specials or whatever it's called, has to be good for the sport
Anyone want to swap a 27 for a 49

[sybella]

Your right Brownie ,how many classes do we need? I thought if your bike didn't fit into the pre 65 1st of jan 1965 your bike was post classic .Or do we do the vets thing a trophy for everyone thing .I know our club has enough to do without buying trophy's for yet another class . But if there is a 68 class i'am can I ride my standard cubs in it? Or do I have to modify them

[JC1]

Hi Tony,

With respect, for the record & in the hope that it may calm troubled waters lest others be mis-informed, its worth mentioning the following:

Firstly, as has been pointed out, let’s not miss the point that Pre65 Classics will stay the same under the proposed changes, apart from removing the discrimination against country of manufacture. (You might recall Tony, that you & I had a lengthy amicable discussion at Conondale last year & you readily agreed that that discrimination should be removed. Plenty of others felt likewise. It seemed to be a widespread consensus.)

Secondly, regarding the procedure for & background to the proposed changes submitted to MA, I can confirm that no puppeteers were involved.

It’s no secret that Classic rules in Oz had been discussed openly, almost ad nauseum, on this TA forum over many years with little/no progress, although eventually there was some consensus apparent, thankfully. Sadly, some who had tried to do something about it in the past copped considerable unpleasant flack for their efforts.

A new thread was posted early last year on the TA forum calling for people interested in discussion of proposed changes. Some indicated their desire not to be involved. Others indicated that such discussion from there-on needed to be off forum, no doubt based on experience so far.

In due course, sometime around the end of last year I think, those who indicated an interest in discussing possible changes began doing so as a group. Not all chose to continue. I am almost certain all those who did are current competitors on classics &/or twinshocks, being members of six different clubs across three states, with more than one member from many clubs. Nobody was coerced in or forced out.

Most of the group were familiar with the forum discussions on classic rules over the last ‘n’ years (having been part of those threads). One who wasn’t took the time to read every relevant post on this forum back to 2009/10. Thus everybody had a decent ‘handle’ on past, present, & possible classic rules.

Some ideas had been specifically floated at last years Nationals seeking feedback. Those ideas that were unpopular were dropped forthwith.

The very valid question,“Why Pre65 (cut-off date)?” which you posed Tony was researched; the instigator of “Pre65” in UK was contacted, & the findings posted on the TA forum in the “Why Pre-65?” thread for all to read. (You might recall that you raised that excellent question with me at Conondale.)

The equally valid history surrounding the M10 Bultaco, & the marques & countries involved in trials back then, was likewise thoroughly researched & the findings posted on the TA forum for all to read.

With the possibility of a later cut-off date mooted, a possible list of extra bikes that would become eligible was researched & also posted on the TA forum.

A multitude of views on classic rules in Oz was thus countenanced & considerable research done. Some consensus was apparent, eg (as I recall):

the need to be more inclusive to give more scope for growth,
the need to keep Pre65 as-is (apart from the removal of discrimination against country of manufacture) so as to be fair to existing competitors (so that they & their machines are not disadvantaged), &
the desire to have a class for modified specials & the flow-on models that are ineligible under the current rules.

Tentative proposals were discussed, then broader input/feedback was sought. The proposals were emailed to every MA-affiliated club in Oz known to have classic riders - ie as I recall, to 3 clubs in Qld, 2 in NSW, 2 in Vic & one in Tas, SA & WA - & to the State Trials sub-committies whose addresses could be found on MA website. Feedback was requested, both for & against. The feedback was positive & encouraging.

Only then were proposals finalized & formally submitted to MA, according to the rules. I dare say there has been considerably more research & input into these proposals than is usual. MA has made some adjustments for their own reasons which none of us are party to.

People stuck their necks out in the belief that something needed to be done for the sake of the cause, knowing full well the flack they may cop. None of them are puppeteers! Everything was done decently and in order, above board. There is nothing to hide. Considerable effort was made to seek consensus from the views aired over the years & to be open, inclusive & transparent in the process, but I hasten to add that none of us are perfect, including you & me. Nor is any rule or proposal.


In answer to your last question Tony, a pre68 machine does not have to be modified to be eligible for the proposed Specials class. Hope this helps. Cheers.

[Twinshock200]

Well explained JC1 (John) and can I also take the opportunity to explain that John was only the co-ordinator for all us Classic and Twinshock enthusiasts who had bombarded him with suggestions of proposed rule changes and he had the patience, intelligence and adminstrative skills to put the various proposals together so that we were able to legitimately put a case forward.
Everyone had the opportunity to have their say and at the end of the day I hope most guys will be pleased that the Pre 65 stays as is and there is now no discrimination against genuine pre 65 Spanish bikes and those that want to ride an Armac Cub or a Whitton framed whatever or a Drayton Bantam or an Otter BSA are able to do so in their own "Classic Specials" class on the same sections as the genuine Pre 65's.
I shall be back in Aus permanently in August and bringing with me two Cubs and a Gold Star engine for my heavyweight BSA.
Look forward to catching up again then
Roger Galpin

[A.Phillipson]

If the pre 65 class and Special class are run over the same lines, at the end of the day is it really necessary to seperate the 2 from each other?

I understand this is to open the class so that more people can ride and display the older bikes, which I what we all want.
I'm just thinking about last years titles.
There were 9 riders(I think) over half were riding what is now know as specials. If these riders enter the specials class and leave the pre65 open for more original bikes, what will happen if you get say 7 riders on the specials and 2 on pre 65. Would this mean that the pre 65 wouldn't run as you need a minimum number to run any grade?

I'm just a little concerned that effectively you could slowly kill off the pre 65 class.

Wouldn't making it all one class be a better move long term?

[TriCub]

I was debating whether or not to respond to Tony's little tanty but John showed great restraint in his answer. I will say that I opened this thread to let other interested parties see what was going up to the MA board for approval as even though it's not secret MA doesn't exactly make the reports easy to find. I will also say that when asked by John if I would comment on the proposal I declined as I felt that if no longer wish to ride MA events I should not participate. Saying that I no longer wish to ride MA events doesn't mean that I want to stop riding my classic bike and I know quite a few classic owners that are sick of being reamed and bullied by MA. Perhaps I should start a new thread for those that would like to do a bit of classic only social riding.

[jml]

23.18.1.5 An effective cut-out switch must be attached to the handlebars

So only a lanyard kill switch is required?

[TriCub]

How many do you want? Looks like they are getting rid of that line in the rules as it is no longer needed with the lanyard rule.