Cub barrels.

[TriCub]

Geoff.
Couple of things I disagree with you on.
Fisrtly after talking with The late Chris Leighfeild several years ago about the Spanish rule being dropped I was lead to believe that a Victorian owner of a Bultaco approached the Trials Commissioners for approval to ride. The Trials Commission members had a rational discussion on the matter and couldn't think why an eligable bike shouldn't be allowed. This is what lead to the rule change not an over sight. Bit hard to confirm with Chris now but that was the story I got from him.
Secondly , the Bultaco Model 10 is claimed by the factory to have started production in November 64. Their are people in the UK that claim to have bikes that were first road registed in December 64 from the fisrt batch delivered to the uk in that same month. There is no question that the Model 10 is not known as a 1965 model bike but our rules only talk about the date of manufacture and also allow components made after the date to be used as long as they are visualy indistingusable from the period items. To my way of thinking that made them eligable at the time of the competion.

[David Lahey]

Twinshock is about to follow with key individuals retiring from the class. Changing the rules etc down here will really just be like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Unfortunately it seems Classics is turning into a class for people who just want to pick up a title at the Aussies or States and don't really support the class at all. The end of an era (again!)
Regards Geoff.

Geoff the Queensland Moto Trials Series has been a good antidote to the "Title event only" twinshock rider phenomenon. Well supported and to do well in the series a rider has to ride most of the rounds.

[Geoff Lewis]

Hi, To reply to Tricub, I really can't comment on a conversation you had with Chris regarding the No Spanish rule. I can only relate to what I know, or heard, of the events at that time. It is my recollection that a chap by the name of Tony Thomas appeared with a modified for trials, pre 65 Spanish machine (Bultaco Sherpa N) after the rule was dropped. I have no doubt that the bike was all correct and eligible as far as the rules were concerned and as I had a quick ride on the machine a couple of times, I am in no doubt that it was far superior to anything that was being ridden in classics at the time, it was a comparison of night and day. Mind you, you must also understand that at the time, the level of preparation of the pre 65 bikes in Victoria , with the exception of a couple of machines, was extremely poor and Tony was an excellent mechanic and his machines were beautifully prepared and presented. The bike was not warmly recieved by the British bike riders at the time but neither were my or Bill Barfields CZ's particularly welcomed as they were looked on as cheap Eastern bloc rubbish!(Sometimes I think they were right!) However he rode quite a few trials on it. I don't know where Tony or the bike are now , he originally built it for his dad but after a come and try day at Oakleigh it was decided that trials was too hard for him. Chris had only just started riding again about this time. The only person who can clarify the story is Iain Barclay as he was advising MA re. pre 65 rules at the time. He was instrumental in the No Spanish rule being dropped for whatever reason, and I will try to contact him (I havent a clue where he is now) for him to clear this up as it seems important to people, although it will make no difference whatsoever to those who are currently riding. I am not going to debate elegibility of M10 as I don't know enough about it and others who do, should put it to rest once and for all, but leave me out of it as I have had enough criticism over the issue, get a letter from Sammy Miller himself if you have to because he was bloodywell there and I wasn't. Does any one have a 32A head in good condition they want to sell?
Regards Geoff.

[TriCub]

Geoff. I don't even know what a 32A head is let alone have one ,sorry.
We should leave the Spanish thing alone but the way the hole rule change thing happened and the Classics at the 2010 Titles , was an in my opinion an absolute disgrace. I still can't believe that rules were enforced at the titles that didn't come into effect until 2011.
I believe that rules need to be in place and left alone if you want a stable class. Changing the things at the drop of a hat will kill an form of sport. I certainly had pulled the pin on classics after the 2010 titles and subsequent rule changes not to mention having major back surgery. Atleast I can ride in that class again without replacing evil Jap carb if I feel the need and get fit enough again.

If you are ever in Brisbane drop over and have a ride on my Cub, you will never want to ride your 100kg CZ again after sampling a well set up 80kg Cub. Just my opinion but I think you would find it better in the sort of sections that we ride nowadays than even the M10 Bultaco.

[whitehillbilly]

Hi Geoff,Try this. Cheap enough.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/VILLIERS-250C ... 53f58f8f47

whitehillbillies

[whitehillbilly]

Should clean up ok, My 32A head has the decompressor hole. 31A/32A were the same I think.

whitehillbillies

[whitehillbilly]

Another one.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Villiers-250- ... 2c6caac265

whitehillbillies

[sybella]

Hi Geoff Lewis,dont give up on the class , I have two cubs which i will be competing on this year for the first time at most state and national events/I have been in trials since the eighty's and have seen classes slowly drop off .The people who are complaining ,well i haven't seen them compete at any of the national events in the last four years. We are either part of the problem or part of the solution , i choose the latter

[Twinshock200]

Well said Sybella, I have a Cub in Australia and I will be bringing two more back with me from the UK when I return permanently from family caring duties over here.
After 32 years living and riding in Australia the classic or Pre 70 scene over here in the UK is incredible with 40 or 50 riders competing every week in the BMCA events in the Midlands and from what I see here I have already suggested to MA that Classic regulations need to change and should include bikes up to Pre 70 which would include more BSA's, Sprites, Greeves, Bultaco' and other Spanish and probably more European bikes if, as we all say, we want to develop and grow the Classic rider numbers.
The regular combined numbers of Pre 65 and twinshock riders in Aus would only total approx 40 guys altogether and when you break that down into states it would be about 12 - 15 riders in the three major states at the larger events and out of those numbers there are probably 2 or three who are vocal enough to speak up on this forum so we never have a wide range of opinions from a large number of riders.

All we can do is dust em' off and get them out of the shed and hope that the section setters cater for these older bikes and don't simply try to stop the top riders with impossible sections which will put the average guys off and you can look at any level of competition to see that happening.
Even in the Uk up to this season they used to get about 12 riders competing in the UK championship class sections riding non stop and in the world series there are about 10 riders competing at the top level, we'll see what "non stop" does to improve this situation.

Before any smart *rse has a go at me for bringing up "pomy" stuff, I have done every job at club and many at MQ officials level in Australia and I have been setting sections for at least 50 years, I have ridden at A grade level and now ride Classic regular so I do have a range of views to bring to the scene.
Cheers
Twinshock200

[oldslowcoach]

I would like to add my thoughts on the above. The date Feb 65 seems readily accepted as something to do with Cub square heads and barrels. I have consulted arguably the foremost authority on Cubs, Mike Estall. He advises that a batch of French Army Cubs was delivered in Feb 65. For that to have occurred, the bikes had to have been built earlier, probably Jan 65 maybe even late 64. So, for that to have happened, the date disputed major components of square heads and barrels must have been cast, machined and tested in 1964. It is simply inconceivable that is not the case.

Mike’s response on the above is as follows:
I would agree with you that square-headed Cubs were first delivered in February and that obviously the bikes would have been built prior to that and clearly the factory must have been messing around with square heads for some time before Feb 65. But, so far as I know, the 'Build' records no longer exist and I have no means of knowing exactly when the change first took place. I know of no one who could give me the answer either

Furthermore, the use of larger fins than the standard Triumph oval barrels was occurring in the early 1960’s. Cub racers in the USA were sporting barrels the size of soccer balls, so those barrels, should someone be able to find one or replicate it, would be fully legal in Australian moms pre-65 classic trials.

At the end of the day I would like to see common sense prevail whereby a Cub is a Cub irrespective of head/barrel shape.

I am sincerely hopeful that the above might help put this great debate to rest. For those thinking I don’t ride so my opinion does not count, four children under eight makes it difficult for me, but I did ride two MQ trials last year, both on Triumphs, one being an oval barrelled Cub

Regards
Peter