2015 Proposed rule changes

[brownie]

Just been thinking about this Specials class does it mean some lunatic can go out and buy any old pre 68 Bultaco, or whatever, chop him up into some trials contraption and compete on it because if you can at least someone will

[JC1]

Gents, I will attempt to answer your questions - very valid ones - tho I’m not presuming to be an authority.

Firstly Allan,

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?

I would think that most likely, at least initially, they’d ride the same lines but there’s no guarantee. It is of course up to clubs to decide & do whatever they see fit, whether for local club days or State/National titles.

Regarding “making it all one class”:

Keeping it one class with extended cut-off date was specifically floated at last year’s Nats. There was little support for it. The feedback received from a number of sources was resoundingly against it, all the way up to high places apparently.

It was said amongst other things that existing riders would be too disadvantaged which was unfair on those already competing. Point taken. There has never been any desire to pursue anything that has little/no support so that idea was dropped forthwith.

Other ideas (keeping one class) were considered but only ever met with half-hearted support at best. They just didn’t seem to resolve the fundamental issues besetting classics, like limited availability of machinery which was widely seen as a major issue hampering the class. And with it goes limited appeal. To quote one pertinent post from an earlier thread on the forum (echoed by many others), “we must pick up our game & make the sport much more inclusive”.

The exclusive way (eg exclude non-Brit carbs, exclude Jap hubs, exclude Bultacos, exclude all Spanish) had been tried & found wanting, leaving classics with barely a handful of competitors across three states. The consensus was that it was time to be more inclusive - perhaps considerably more so – to broaden the base, the appeal, while being careful to remain true to classics.

If I may also point out the obvious: if we went the way of one class with later cut-off that would immediately kill off pre65 – probably with a lot of angst & pain which everybody wants to avoid. And if it didn’t have a later cut-off date, then it would be little/no more inclusive so it wouldn't achieve much.

The idea then evolved for the two classes allowing those who wish to stay with pre65 & fairly standard machinery to do so, & those who wish to have a larger pool of more available machines to choose from &/or modify their machines to also do so. That was like a breath of fresh air; it got immediate broad & enthusiastic support (tho not unanimous).

We know it’s not without some difficulties. Valid questions will be asked & they deserve answers (as I’m attempting to do here). If this goes ahead its realistic to expect some ‘teething problems’ as usual, & the 'sails' may yet have to be trimmed a little. But few things are insurmountable, given appropriate thought, broad input, & practical experience. And it seemed a much fairer way forward with decent scope for growth all round.

It lets the competitors themselves decide the future, like water finds its own level. For those who want pre65 to continue, it will be up to them to see that it does. Similarly, for those who are lured by slightly later machinery &/or specials based on them, it will likewise be up to them to see that it prospers.

There is additional scope for growth in both classes as proposed, so if both groups are keen then both can not only survive but prosper. What could be more fair? The opportunity is there. That’s what it’s about, providing more opportunity for both - raising the sails to catch more wind.

None of us knows what’s around the corner, but consider the potential. Dreams are free, so dream big! Sometimes they turn into reality. That’s what drives initiative. In two of the most inspiring & influential speeches of modern times, Martin Luther King famously sang out, “I have a dream…” & JFK exhorted, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for country!”

It’s those attitudes that make things happen, as many of you know. With such attitudes combined with the opportunities provided by the proposed changes, it’s entirely possible that around the corner is an influx of new blood into Classics such that more stand-alone Classic/Twinshock events can be hatched & sustained, & with it perhaps different lines for pre65 & Specials may eventuate as a regular thing.

To my way of thinking, Denman & WDTC have long shown the fruitfulness of such events. The Conondale Twinshock Masters is by far the biggest event up here - 115 riders last year I'm told - & the atmosphere is fantastic; some may even say ‘intoxicating’. Even if not exclusively classic/twinshock, the emphasis is there. Tony Bax & CQTC re-started something similar last year (carrying on from Broweena), LRMTC has a Classic Trial starting this Sunday & Vic has the GOAT Classic that I understand starts next month. Potentially happy days for classics/twinshocks!

I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but is it too much to ‘lift our eyes to the hills’ & dream that around the corner may be a bit of snowball effect - those excellent initiatives by clubs dovetailing with these proposed changes & a spirit of co-operation to give classics a real boost? Each feeding the other & feeding off each other.

There is of course no guarantee of an influx. But perhaps we are on the cusp of one. The opportunity & potential is there - real opportunity, & real potential.

As the saying goes, "There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come". It will take some effort & good-will all round, but Gents... perhaps it's for such a time as this! No harm in being optomistic.

[sybella]

Hi John after speaking to you on Friday ,I know your heart is in the right place ,but the only thing we are doing is moving the problem along by 3 years.There are way to many bikes in the 1968 to 69 70 cross over .if we a having trouble now trying to work out what's in or out now ,it will be like a street fight boots an all. There are still plenty on pre 65 classic's around ,just the parts are getting harder to get . Every body complains about the UK scene,i would love to go to a trial when there is 120 plus riders on classic's ,modded or not . They seem to be doing something ok ,there are blokes making and earning a living out of making pre 65 period parts . Go pre 65 class tony bax

[JC1]

Bear with me guys & I'll do my best to answer the questions in turn, tho I'm under no pretension of being an authority

Next Brownie's, shortly (next post).

[JC1]

Just been thinking about this Specials class does it mean some lunatic can go out and buy any old pre 68 Bultaco, or whatever, chop him up into some trials contraption and compete on it because if you can at least someone will

Sadly, no rule can constrain the lunatic fringe.

Numerous ideas, both from past forum threads & recent discussion, were countenanced as some kind of restraint on Specials to curb those given to excess; eg max ground clearance, min seat height, min subframe width, min weight, max fork length, min differential between bashplate & seat tube heights etc. (Personally I think that last one has considerable merit cos it would mean that if somebody wanted to lower their seat tubes they would have to lower their ground clearance correspondingly.)

But it was felt that rules should be kept as simple & brief as reasonably possible, at least initially. Nobody wanted scrutineers being under pressure of finding measurements a few mm out etc. And on a classic/twinshock most of those dimensions are self-limiting to some degree.

I could give a short answer to your specific question but perhaps a more benficial way is to consider eligibility more broadly by working thro’ the proposed rules (as on MA website) relevant to building a Special. Most problems arise because people simply don’t follow the rules.

Under Section 23.B Competition Classes, in Table 23.5, we find Classics are limited to machines first available to the general public before 1 Jan 65, now with no exclusion for country of manufacturer. Whether the machine/part was manufactured prior to the cut-off date or used by works riders then is irrelevant; it must have been readily available for purchase by Joe Public. The point is, if it was not available to the public in the era, it couldn't have been used in the era by you or me.

For Pre68 Classic/Specials, that cut-off date is extended (later in the rules, see 23E Class Technical Regulations) to 1 Jan 68, with the same stipulation of being available to the general public. (It is a bit unfortunate that this date for P68/Specials is not included in Table 23.5 which it was in the proposal put to MA but for whatever reason they have not seen fit to include it there. It may be that future MOMs will need Pre68 Classic/Specials inserted in that table between Pre65 Classic & Post-Classic/Twinshock)

From there we work thro Section 23E Class Technical Regulations:

The eligibility/dating/class of the machine is determined by the period of the latest major component (which are listed), the same as before. The onus for providing proof of dating/era is now on the rider. He/she alone is responsible for it. The buck stops there.

Minor parts are allowed more modern replacements but have to remain “visually compatible” with the era, as it was before. ie The bike must maintain the look of the era, whether Pre68 or Pre65. That is regarded as important. It is part of the attraction/appeal of classics & their distinctiveness from Post-Classics.

Perhaps the most pertinent point here is that Specials would still be subject to these rules on major & minor components. This is critical & may yet have to be reinforced. It is not open slather on major components &/or modifications with a cursory nod to pre68. You cannot put a Cub engine in a TLR frame or a Fantic engine in a Sprite frame & expect to compete. Nor SWM Jumbo forks on an M10 Sherpa. Major components must be pre68 or a close likeness, as follows:

With regard to replicas of major parts & flow-on models/parts made after the cut-off dates, they are eligible if they are “visually indistinguishable” from period parts/models available to the general public, as before. It was discussed whether or not a more flexible interpretion of this should be hinted at by change of wording to (something like) “visually indistinguishable at five metres” or “visually similar” but it was decided that may pose more problems than it solves.

As to allowable modifications for Specials, unseen internal mods to major components have long been deemed acceptable & that should remain as before, eg fork internals, porting, gears. As for visible mods to major components, what is allowable is quite specific in the proposed rules – ie "chassis performance" mods that are "consistent with the Twinshock era", NOT the mono-shock era.

Major components from the twinshock (or monoshock eras) would not be eligible; eg forks from a TY mono. Nor would square barrels from 70s/80s Sherpas on P68 Sherpas etc (or porcupine heads on Pre65 Bultacos for that matter) as they are neither "visually indistinguishable" nor "chassis performance" mods.

It is not free reign for Specials! Modified frames & after-market frames will have to clearly show their Pre68 roots. ie The design/layout of the frame must be Pre68 but the specs may be Twinshock era, eg steeper rake, raised engine, cut-off cradle tubes, higher ground clearance, relocated shocks for more travel etc. They must look unmistakebly like modified Pre68 frames.

eg Drayton Bantam, Armac Cub, Otter BSA frames etc - while not visually indistinguishable to the n-th degree from standard pre68 frames (by virtue of the allowed mods & more modern specs), they clearly follow the form of the frames of the day. No doubt, when applied to Special's frames, "visually indistinguishable" will require a little more flexible interpretation than for the 'regular' Pre65 Classics.

Seat tubes are going to have to remain more or less as-is, ie a couple of inches above rear tyre height. Eligible mods like fitting Cub subframe to D10/D14 Bantams will still be in that vicinity. As I understand it lowered seat-tubes did not come in till the mono era when they were also slimmed as well since they didn’t have to accommodate shocks that were attached at the other end to the swingarm near the axle.

That's how I understand it tho it's not meant to be the final word.


Options for overseeing eligible mods for Specials were also floated & considered. eg

i) a database of guidelines from ‘marque experts’ showing eligible base machines & flow-on models/parts, eligible aftermarket frames, perhaps allowable modifications etc posted on TA website somewhere appropriate. The website overseer has already agreed it is do-able & he’s willing. Marque 'experts' are already researching this.

ii) a flow-chart clearly outlining the steps/pathway for following the rules for both pre65 Classics & Pre68 Specials.

iii) a logbook system where each owner logs his modifications (ie variations from a standard pre68 machine) & if a bike is suspected of being not according to declared mods & is protested, the owner rider must provide proof that it is as logged.

iv) a small group of assessors or moderators (for want of a better term) perhaps one from each of the three states with most classics, linked electronically & empowered to moderate/asses. Anything questionable could be submitted to them prior to the build &/or modification or prior to an upcoming trial (like a Nat’l). It would be their job to assess the evidence for eligibility presented by the rider/builder himself, not to do all the research.

Such options could be seen as an unnecessary complication, a deterrent to participation, a deterrent to excesses (ie the lunatic/foolhardy fringe etc) &/or a very useful help - depending on one’s attitude/perspective.

Initially we tho’t it best just to seek approval for the basic class with the least rules & see how much common sense prevails with the onus-of-responsibilty clause. Beyond that the database of eligible models & perhaps the flowchart(s) being available on TA website could be very useful.

Personally I would think it wise for any builder of a Special to maintain a logbook from the start, along with relevant documentation, even if it’s not formally required.


Apologies for the lengthy replies, but good questions deserve decent answers if we hope to all be on the same page.

[A.Phillipson]

I have been waiting to ask this question and you touched on it during your last reply.

In regards to the eligibility.

How will this be judged
Will the bike be accepted until eligibility Is questioned??
Or
Will the rider have to prove eligibility before even being accepted?
Will all bikes currently accepted/compete have to prove there eligibility not just future bikes?

I have heard in the past people use the " it's been accepted in the past, why wouldn't it it be now.

The other thing is if the evidence is proven ahead of the event and the bike is accepted, then the scrutineer deems it unsuitable what would happen then?

The main thing I'm very interested in finding out is what will the consistency of the scrutinneering marshal be? How much classic knowledge do they have?
Will they be able to provide a professional opinion/verdict without any outside criticism from other competitors?
Will the have be able to have a neutral opinion towards people either if they are friends or not?

I'm just concerned as at the moment it can be very inconsistent with the classic class. Especially if the scruitineer is good mates with some riders, and some riders don't seem to get along.
In my experience this happens a lot, I've seen a bike pass issue free, then a rider come up and questioned the scruitineer, then all sorts of questions have been asked. Then the rider said "I'll keep an eye out during the event and see what they get up to, and let you know".

I'm just asking as being someone excluded in the past, I'd like to avoid any of this nonsense when I come to ride in the future.

I understand there will be teething issue at the start, hopefully they wouldn't be to bad.
I think the idea of a registry keeping track of mods and bikes is going to be a great idea and I would like to see it happen.
If you are serious and following the rules you shouldn't have anything to hide, if there's nothing to hide there shouldn't be any reason why you cannot tell all competitors/marshals what you have done.

[brownie]

Thanks for your reply JC1. To me it would be better just calling it pre68 not specials as the only specials would be modified pre65 bikes that don't comply with pre65 requirements.
Good luck with the new class I don't think I'll be competing in it unless a M27 turns up which is pretty unlikely never actually seen one in the flesh. Still I have the 49 I can ride in twinshock (my favourite bike) maybe not real competitive but a LOT of fun to ride. Just wish more riders would get their older twinshocks out of the shed and have a ride and if like me it gives you an excuse why you didn't do to well

[TriCub]

Thanks for your reply JC1. To me it would be better just calling it pre68 not specials as the only specials would be modified pre65 bikes that don't comply with pre65 requirements.
Good luck with the new class I don't think I'll be competing in it unless a M27 turns up which is pretty unlikely never actually seen one in the flesh. Still I have the 49 I can ride in twinshock (my favourite bike) maybe not real competitive but a LOT of fun to ride. Just wish more riders would get their older twinshocks out of the shed and have a ride and if like me it gives you an excuse why you didn't do to well

I know someone who has a M27 if you like I can ask if they want to sell it?
Just thinking if the M27 is a pre68 bike as the date listed for the model is 67 to 68 wouldn't that mean that it is a 1968 model. The M10 is listed as made in 64 but is a 65 model. Question would be if they were available to the general public in 67 as the new models came out of the factory late in the year that they listed.
The Classic MX wording is probably better for this question, it says something about designated year model.
Next time I talk to Don Newell I'll ask him when the first M27 turned up in Oz. I believe that he ordered a couple of Model 10's but M27's turned up instead.

[brownie]

Yes please TriCub ask if they want to sell it.
I don't really care if it's classed as pre68 in our new rules but from what I've read Juan Soler Bulto won the Reyes Trial (The Trial of Kings) on a pre production m27 on the 8/1/67 (seemly Mick Andrews rode the new Ossa 230 in this trial)and the m27 went into production in the spring of 1967 in Spain March /May.

[TriCub]

Yes please TriCub ask if they want to sell it.
I don't really care if it's classed as pre68 in our new rules but from what I've read Juan Soler Bulto won the Reyes Trial (The Trial of Kings) on a pre production m27 on the 8/1/67 (seemly Mick Andrews rode the new Ossa 230 in this trial)and the m27 went into production in the spring of 1967 in Spain March /May.

I gave the guy a call and despite him telling me several years ago he had one stashed away in the back of his shed it is nowhere to be found. Next time I'm over a his place I'll try and jog his memory as to what happened to it.